Preamble

The House met, at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wrexham District Tramways Bill (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRISH FLAX CROP.

Major O'NEILL: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of the 1919 Irish flax crop which has so far been purchased: and what quantity of the flax has been allocated to each of the different grades?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I will circulate a Statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the Statement referred to:

The total amount of the 1919 Irish flax crop purchases under the Government control scheme up to the 14th February was 7,963 tons. The following table shows the quantities, in tons, allocated to various grades:—






Tons.


Grade 1
…
…
…
157


" 2
…
…
…
550


" 3
…
…
…
1,532


" 4
…
…
…
2,507


" 5
…
…
…
2,079


" 6
…
…
…
846


Lower grade
…
…
…
292

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITLSH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY.

Mr. HURD: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade upon what authority the Sub-Committee appointed to inquire into the existence of a trade combination in the tobacco industry report that the American Tobacco Company hold two-thirds of the stock of the British-American Tobacco Company, seeing that the American Tobacco Company ceased to hold any shares in the British-American Tobacco about eight years ago?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand that the statement in the Report of the Sub-Committee appointed to investigate tobacco which is referred to by my hon. Friend was based on a passage quoted in an appendix to the Report of the
Committee on Trusts. The passage quoted is believed to be a correct statement of the position at the time at which it was written, but I am informed that the position has changed, and that the facts are now as stated by my hon. Friend.

Mr. HURD: Will that correction be made with equal publicity to the Report?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will pass it on to the Sub-Committee for their information.

Oral Answers to Questions — POTASH (IMPORTATION).

Sir RICHARD COOPER: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if one or more representatives of his department, or of any other Government departments, have been sent to any place on the Continent since the armistice to negotiate for the importation into the United Kingdom of German potash; was this emissary or emissaries empowered to arrange the terms of such importation; and what are the names of such representatives and their nationality at the time of their birth?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Two representatives were sent in March, 1919, to Rotterdam to meet representatives of the; German Government to discuss arrangements for the importation of German potash into the United Kingdom in credit for foodstuffs, in pursuance of arrangements made at the Financial Conference held at Treves in the preceding February; and they were empowered to draw up a provisional agreement, subject to the approval of His Majesty's Government, for the purchase and importation of potash. The representatives were Mr. James Francis Ronca of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Arthur Blok of the Potash

Grades.
Quantities covered by the Contract.
Quantities received in the U. K. to date.
Prices credited to German Government f.a.s. Rotterdam.*



Tons.
Tons.
£
S.
d.


80 per cent. Muriate of Potash
20,000
8,288
16
5
1


90–95 per cent. Muriate of Potash
5,000
2,300
18
0
8


90 per cent. Sulphate of Potash
13,500
5,970
18
15
11


Potash Manure Salts (Minimum content 30 per cent. Potash as K2O).
10,000
7,855
8
5
1


Total
48,500
24,413
—


* The amount to be delivered at Rotterdam is approximately two-thirds of the whole. The remainder is to be delivered f.o.b. Hamburg at prices 5s. per ton lower than those set out above.

Production Branch of the Ministry of Munitions; both representatives are British born subjects.

Sir R. COOPER: Will the hon. Gentleman say if the latter gentleman was British at the time of his birth?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have just said he was a British born subject.

Sir R. COOPER: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if potassium compounds are included as No. 8 in a list of articles of which importation into the United Kingdom is prohibited except under licence, the list being Command Paper 454, of 1919, issued by the Board of Trade, in November of that year; and has this Order been superseded?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in this House on the 18th December, from which he will see that there is at present no restriction on the importation of potassium compounds.

Sir R. COOPER: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of the original contract for the importation of German potash, arranged by the Board of Trade; what quantities of the various grades, carnallite, kainite, muriate, and sulphate, have so far been received in this country on account of that contract; and what price per ton has been paid to Germany for the various grades of potash so imported?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will have a statement included in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the Statement mentioned:

Oral Answers to Questions — SEWING COTTON.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the findings of the Committee on Profiteering in sewing cotton, from which it appears that when Messrs. Coats sell their sewing cotton to retailers they bind them under contract to sell sewing cotton manufactured by competitors of Messrs. Coats with the same margin of profit at which they sell sewing cotton manufactured by Messrs. Coats, and that this contract makes it extremely difficult for manufacturers of sewing cotton, other than Messrs. Coats, to obtain a footing in this market; and whether he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether such a contract is void as being in restraint of trade?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the facts referred to by my hon. Friend, and I will consider the question of consulting the Law Officers as he suggests.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman or the Government arrange to deal with this very important matter, or, failing that, introduce legislation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is an important matter, but I cannot undertake to say what course the Government will pursue, but they will give it their most earnest consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL FRUIT SALES, LONDON.

Mr. GILBERT: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Colonial fruit importers endeavoured to promote a sale room or market for Colonial fruit at the docks of the Port of London Authority, and that such sales have been stopped by the City of London as a market authority under an old charter; and whether he will inquire, in the interests of the consumers who desire cheap fruits and Colonial growers and importers who wish to increase the trade, whether such fruit can be sold directly it is landed from a ship without the expense of carting it to City and other markets miles away?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative; it is understood, however,
that the objection to the establishment of a sale room at the docks was raised by the lessee of Spitalfields Market. The Departmental Committee on the Wholesale Food Markets of London will issue an interim report on the whole question of London markets in the course of a few days. The question of providing additional market facilities is being examined by this Committee and will form the subject of a further report at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

GOODS RATES (OWNER'S RISK).

Colonel BURN: 16.
asked the Minister of Transport if, as stated in the Report of the Railway Rates Advisory Committee, the charges on goods carried at owner's risk were advanced in 1918 by an average of 24 per cent., and if they now recommended an increase of 50 per cent.; is he aware that those increases will raise the rates on a 33-pound parcel in a 10-mile journey from 6d. to 1s. 8d., a total increase of 233 per cent.; and will he take steps to reduce this heavy increase without waiting for the Report of the general inquiry which, according to the Committee, may take a year or longer to complete?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend are substantially correct, and presumably refer to the increases on parcels traffic carried by passenger train at owner's risk. These increases, which are of interim character, were made on the advice of the Rates Advisory Committee, and the Minister feels unable to sanction any modifications pending the report of the Committee on the general inquiry into the basis and classification of railway rates which is now proceeding.

Colonel BURN: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Minister in connection with the demand for the decrease of these rates that seven of the railway companies increased their dividends for 1919 over 1918?

Mr. NEAL: The rate of dividend paid by the railway companies does not depend at all upon the amount which is to be realised by the increased railway charge.

ROADS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. MITCHELL: 17.
asked the Minister of Transport if the Ministry of Transport has refused representation on the Roads Advisory Committee to the British Rubber Tyre Manufacturers' Association; whether he is aware that the only part of a vehicle that comes in contact with the road surface is the tyre, and that therefore the chief possibility of reduction or aggravation of road wear lies in the construction and perfection of the various forms of tyres; and whether he will reconsider his decision in view of the importance of having the best technical advice on this important subject on the Roads Advisory Committee?

Mr. NEAL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The representation of bodies such as the British Rubber Tyre Manufacturers' Association on the Roads Advisory Committee is not provided for, or required, in Section 22 (2) of the Ministry of Transport Act, and I do not think it desirable that associations of this character should have direct representation on the Committee, though the Committee will doubtless take steps to make itself acquainted with the views of the traders affected.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: What steps are being taken by the Government to ascertain the result of experiments in wheels and tyres as to the relative amount of road destruction occasioned by them?

Mr. NEAL: If the hon. Member gives notice I shall be glad to answer.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 19.
asked the Minister of Transport what method is followed in selecting the personnel of the Roads Advisory Committees whether representatives of the rural district councils have, been selected: and, if not, will he favourably consider the appointment of such a representative or representatives, in view of the mileage of roads for which these councils are responsible?

Captain TUDOR-REES: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that rural district councils control nearly 100,000 miles of roads, he will consider the advisability of including a representative or representatives of these councils on the Roads Advisory Committee appointed or to be appointed under Section 22 of The Ministry of Transport Act, 1919?

Lieut.-Colonel BELL: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a communication from the Rural District Councils Association, pointing out that no representative of the rural district councils has been appointed on the Roads Advisory Committee, formed under Section 22 of The Ministry of Transport Act, 1019; and whether he is prepared to consider sympathetically the question of appointing such a representative?

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 46.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of there being nearly 100,000 miles of roads under the superintendence of the rural district councils, he can see his way to grant their request, made through the Rural District Councils Association, for a representative on the Roads Advisory Committee?

Mr. NEAL: A representative of the Rural District Councils' Association has been nominated to serve on the Roads Advisory Committee. I am, waiting to hear from the gentleman so nominated whether he is willing to serve. The name of the representative of the rural district councils will be announced in due course.

LONDON TRAFFIC REGULATION.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with any of the experiments in traffic regulation recently carried out in London; if any experiments in one-way traffic have been carried out in the most important arteries of traffic; and, if not, will he consider the possibility of giving a trial to the suggestion, at any rate dining the hours of greatest congestion?

Mr. NEAL: The reports from the Com missioners of Police of the City and Metropolitan Areas indicate that alterations in stopping places of omnibuses and trams adopted on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee have, in general, greatly facilitated the movement of traffic. No such experiment as that referred to in the second part of the question has been carried out. The question shall be referred to the Advisory Committee for consideration.

VEHICLES (LIGHTS AND TAXATION).

Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can place the Report of General Maybury's Committee at the disposal of Members of the House of Commons?

Mr. NEAL: Sir Henry Maybury is Chairman of two Departmental Committees appointed to consider and report respectively on (1) lights on road vehicles, and (2) the taxation and regulation of road vehicles. The first of these Committees has presented an Interim Report; the second has not yet reported. I am informed that a further Interim Report by the Committee on lights may be expected at a very early date, and the Minister will then give favourable consideration to the question of publishing both Reports.

Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to give the House an opportunity of debating this question before issuing any Regulations?

Mr. NEAL: That will receive consideration.

PASSENGER FARES.

Mr. CAIRNS: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill or Bills to increase the passenger rates for travelling; and is he aware of the hardship this will place upon school children travelling by train to school, also upon teachers and the general public?

Mr. NEAL: As at present advised the Minister of Transport does not intend to take any steps to effect a further general increase in ordinary passenger fares above their present level.

WOMEN AND CHILD TRAVELLERS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 45.
asked the Minister of Transport whether there is any woman representative on the Transport Advisory Committee to consider questions relating to the welfare of women and child travellers; and, if not, will he state the reason?

Mr. NEAL: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the Committee which the Minister has appointed to advise upon technical matters connected with railway working. I do not think that this would be an appropriate Committee for the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind. The question of the safety and convenience of passengers is being dealt with at the Ministry of Transport by the staff who formerly dealt with these matters under the Board of Trade. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, a panel of experts is being appointed under Section
23 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, from which Advisory Committees for particular purposes can be selected. The question as to whether it is desirable to constitute such a Committee to consider matters affecting the welfare and convenience of passengers is under consideration, and if it should be decided to appoint the same, the Minister would doubtless desire to have the representation of women on the Committee.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of this as regards the safety of women and children?

Mr. NEAL: If the Committee is appointed, that is one of the matters which it certainly would have to consider.

CAMPING PARTIES (REDUCED FARES).

Mr. BRIANT: 47.
asked the Minister of Transport if the railway facilities for reduced fares to camping parties of scouts, boys' brigades, and similar organisations of boys and girls will be available at Faster and during the summer, subject to their approval by the juvenile organisations committee in connection with the Board of Education?

Mr. NEAL: The question of railway facilities for such camping parties is under consideration with the railway companies. I am trying to expedite a decision; meantime I am unable to make any definite statement.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will reduced fares for children during the Easter holidays be allowed?

Mr. NEAL: That question is also receiving consideration.

PASSENGER FARES.

Major BARNES: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport if it is intended to further raise passenger fares and abolish work men's tickets?

Mr. NEAL: As at present advised, the Minister of Transport does not intend to take any steps to effect a further general increase in ordinary passenger fares above their present level. The discussion on the London Electric, Metropolitan District, City and South London, and Central London Railway Companies (Fares) Bill will give the House convenient opportunity of considering the question of
cheap fares for workmen so far as the Metropolis is concerned, and whether any modification of the present system is desirable.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the attitude of the Minister of Transport with regard to this matter, and whether the Government are going to back the Bill or otherwise?

Mr. NEAL: It is the intention of the Minister of Transport to be represented and take part in the Debate.

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister of Transport has made up his mind whether he is going to back the Bill or oppose it?

Mr. NEAL: That, I think, we had better wait for until the discussion on the Bill.

MIDLAND RAILWAY EXIT, NOTTINGHAM.

Mr. ATKEY: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the present estimated cost of re-opening the closed exit from the Midland Railway opposite Trent Street, Nottingham; will he give details showing how it is arrived at; and what he net cost would be after allowing for the saving to the Exchequer which would follow the employment of discharged and demobilised sailors or soldiers now drawing out-of-work donations, and also taking credit for the contribution of £100 per annum offered by Boots Cash Chemists, Limited, as an acknowledgment of the convenience which the re-opening of the exit would provide to many hundreds of their employés?

Mr. NEAL: I am asking the Midland Railway Company to furnish me with a revised estimate of the cost to them, and I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman after I have received their reply.

Captain LOSEBY: Cannot the hon. Gentleman spare the House a repetition of the very painful details of this controversy by making something in the nature of a concession to the right hon. Gentleman?

Dr. MURRAY: Would the hon. Gentleman also take into account the amount of money that would be saved by the elimination of this weekly conundrum from the Question Paper?

LONDON TRAFFIC.

Sir F. HALL: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the congestion of traffic in London and the consequent waste of labour and petrol; whether the Select Committee which recently sat on Transport (Metropolitan Area) made any recommendations with regard to slow-going traffic; if so, whether such recommendations have been carried out; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay?

Mr. NEAL: Yes, Sir. The Select Committee has drawn attention to the need for the better control of slow-moving traffic. The question has been under the consideration of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic and its Technical Committee, and an experiment is being carried out on two thoroughfares in the City and East End of London, where there is a great volume of slow-moving traffic.

Sir F. HALL: Considering that the Advisory Committee is sitting now, does the hon. Gentleman not pay any attention to the two Select Committees set up, one in 1918 and one in 1019: and when did they start this experiment with regard to slow-moving traffic?

Mr. NEAL: The Advisory Committee is considering, amongst other matters, the report made by the Select Committee to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred. I cannot give the date when the experiment was commenced.

Sir F. HALL: But is the Department aware of the enormous amount of loss in consequence of the congested traffic? Does he recognise how it is held up, and should not something be done to alleviate it?

Mr. NEAL: The existence of the Committee is the best evidence that the Ministry attaches very great importance to the question.

Sir F. HALL: That is only a repetition of the last Committee.

METROPOLITAN EXTENSION LINE.

Mr. GILBERT: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any announcement as to the decision of the London Advisory Committee as to re opening the stations and working the Victoria to City line on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company,
which in pre-War times was a convenience to thousands of daily travellers in South London?

Mr. NEAL: The Advisory Committee on London Traffic has not yet made a recommendation with regard to the reopening of the stations on this line, but, as indicated in my previous reply of the 16th February, it is hoped that a decision will be arrived at very soon.

Viscount CURZON: Is the Advisory Committee going to issue any report; and, if so, will it be available to Members of the House

Mr. NEAL: Certainly it will issue a report.

CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY.

Mr. GILBERT: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the City and South London Railway Company run trains during part of the day with the entry gates closed to some of their carriages which are run empty, and that this has recently caused an accident and a death; whether it is according to Regulations that such trains should be run; and, if so, if he will order the company to exhibit proper notices on the platforms stating which parts and carriages of such trains are open for the use of passengers?

Mr. NEAL: I am in communication with the railway company in regard to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I gather that the unfortunate accident to which he refers was one in which a passenger attempted to enter a moving train.

GUERNSEY (GKANITE-KERB INDUSTRY).

Mr. RAPER: 94.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller if he will state what steps have been taken by his Department to overcome the difficulty of securing granite kerb from Guernsey and with what result?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the SHIPPING CONTROLLER (Colonel Leslie Wilson): The Shipping Controller has been able to arrange for suitable steamers to load stone from Guernsey in accordance with the requirements of the Roads Department of the Ministry of Transport. Up to the present moment steamers aggregating something over 6,000 tons have been utilised for this purpose.

SHIPPING CONTROL.

Sir. F. HALL: 42.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if his attention has been called to the Report recently issued by the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association dealing with the disorganisation of shipping arising from the present methods of Government control; and if he will state when the Government propose to remove such control?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): This Report has only just been received, and the Department has not yet had time to consider it.

Sir F. HALL: If I put down a question in a week's time, will the right hon. Gentleman perhaps be able to give a reply?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so.

HULL DOCKS (CONGESTION).

Major Entwistle: 43
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken by him to alleviate the present congested state of the Hull docks in regard to timber owing to the inadequate supply of wagons for transit of goods inland, which goods are urgently needed for the building trade;
(2) Whether any and, if so, what steps he has taken to amend the present allocation of wagons to the Humber district, which is based on 1917 user, when, owing to its geographical position in the war zone, the imports and exports were considerably reduced; why the allocation is not based on the normal pre-war trade of this district; and whether he is aware that the congestion resulting from shortage of wagons is causing much unemployment?

Mr. NEAL: The subject of readjusting the allocation of wagons made in 1917 under the common user system is a matter for, and is being dealt with by, the railways, and I am expecting to receive shortly their final conclusions on the matter. In the meantime the supply of wagons at Hull is receiving constant attention, with the object of ensuring for that port a fair proportion of the wagons available, and as far as it is possible without sacrificing other requirements the demands for wagons for timber required for the building trade are being met. Every effort will be made to reduce the stocks of timber at Hull before the next
importing season. I am again calling the special attention of the railway companies concerned to the urgency of the problem.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the motor lorries supplied by his Department to Hull gave great satisfaction and great assistance in cleaving the port, and could this be extended?

Mr. NEAL: I am glad they gave some assistance; I do not know to what extent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can anything be done to continue this assistance and extend it?

Mr. NEAL: That shall be considered.

PERSIAN GULF (STEAMERS).

Captain REDMOND: 55.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the best steamers hitherto used by the Government in the Persian Gulf and the River Tigris have been sold by private negotiations, to the exclusion of many traders who were awaiting the opportunity of bidding for them at a public auction; whether he will disclose the names of the group who purchased the steamers from the Government; and what steps he will take to ensure a fair competitive basis for obtaining transport facilities in the area described?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This question has been referred to the India Office.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: May I ask why the India Office should answer this question?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON AND LIVERPOOL DOCKS (CONGESTION).

Mr. G. TERRELL: 95.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller if he can furnish a list of the ships which are now held up awaiting discharge at the ports of London and Liverpool, giving dates of arrival, tonnage, cargoes, and reasons for delay, respectively.

Colonel WILSON: On the night of 27th February, 14 vessels were awaiting discharge in London and 18 in Liverpool. I am circulating with the Official Report a statement containing the detailed information desired by my hon. Friend. In general it may be stated that the delay
is due to the congestion of the quays, transit sheds, warehouses, etc., and this condition is to be attributed mainly to the lack of sufficient facilities to meet the requirements of traffic to inland centres of consumption and distribution.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that he is entirely mistaken as to the number of vessels awaiting discharge, and that it is nearly double?

Colonel WILSON: I called for a return, and got one to the evening of the 27th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Mr. INSKIP: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to issue a list of enemy persons whom it is proposed to put on trial for offences against international law under the Peace Treaties: and, if so, when the list will be issued.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): As the hon. Member will recollect, an opportunity has been given to the German Government to proceed itself to the trial of the persons referred to, and a list of those who are to be so treated will be forthcoming at an early date.

Mr. INSKIP: Is it not proposed to issue a list of prisoners whom we propose to put on trial?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. The list that we are sending will be published in due course.

Mr. BILLING: Shall we conduct the prosecution, or will the Germans?

Mr. INSKIP: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what "due course" means: does he not realise that very great public interest in taken in the names of the persons, if any, who will be put on trial?

The PRIME MINISTER: Undoubtedly, and rightly so. There are some of these people who undoubtedly must be brought to justice, because they have committed some of the most foul crimes in the history of the world. The list is being prepared by a Commission of the Allies.

Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed that the Law Officers of the British Crown shall be represented at this trial, and, if so, will they conduct the prosecution?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, the Law Officers of the British Crown will not appear before the German Court. We propose to give the opportunity to the German Court to see that justice is done, but we are not in the least abandoning our rights.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What is the number comprised in the first list forwarded to the German Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not had the list yet.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that British experts are present at the trial to watch the proceedings?

The PRIME MINISTER: We shall certainly watch the proceedings very carefully.

Mr. E. WOOD: WO the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher)?

Mr. MacVEAGH: You want a butcher to kill the Kaiser!

Mr. HOUSTON: What will be the attitude of the British Government if the German Court acquits these men?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can ask that if the contingency arises.

Sir F. HALL: 38.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state what control will be exercised by the Allies over the trials of war criminals at Leipzig; whether, if the trials are unsatisfactory as regards their impartiality and otherwise, the Allies have reserved to themselves an effective right to re-open the matter; and whether any and, if so, what modifications have been made in the list of accused persons originally submitted on behalf of this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. and gallant Friend will consult the Note addressed to the German Government on February 13th, the terms of which were published in the Press of February 17th, he will obtain all the information asked for in his question. No further communication on this subject has since been made to the German Government.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the first portion of the question is not replied to
by the reply already given? What control will there be?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already answered that in reply to another question.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask further whether, in consequence of the reply that he has made that the Law Officers of the Crown will not be able to represent the British Government, who is going to look after the interests of the British Government, or who is going to see that these criminals are properly dealt with?

The PRIME MINISTER: We shall take very step that is possible before a German Court to see that all the facts and evidence are submitted to the Court.

Mr. BILLING: Will the German Court permit us to have someone there with a watching brief on our behalf?

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Will British witnesses be subpoenaed to give evidence in these matters?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt at all that all the evidence necessary and relevant will be submitted, whether it is British or any other evidence.

Viscount CURZON: Is it still the intention of the Government to try the Kaiser before a German Court or an English one?

COPIES (PRICE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 54.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when copies of the Peace Treaty will be obtainable at a price less than one guinea; and whether he is aware that the German text, with map, can be had for 2½ marks, equalling 2d.

The ADDITIONAL UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir H. Greenwood): The issue of a cheaper edition of the Treaty is under examination. There was a considerable loss on the first edition which gave the English text only, and cost 4s. I was not previously aware that a German translation had been issued so cheaply.

NORTH CAUCASIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 56.
asked the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the republic of North Caucasia, including Dhagestan; whether he is aware that the Soviet government of Russia has recognised the provisional independence of this government; and why de facto recognition of North Caucasia is withheld by His Majesty's Government, while the de facto governments of Georgia and Azerbaidjan are recognised?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Allied Powers have not recognised the so-called North Caucasian Republic of Daghestan, because of the uncertainty that exists as to the authority and stability of its Government. I have no information as to its recognition by the Soviet Government of Russia.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that representatives of this Government are now in London, and has his Department interviewed them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not know-as to whether any interviews have taken place with any representatives who may be in London. The answer I have given is the only answer I can give to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BESSARABIA AND ROUMANIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been reached at the Peace Conference with regard to the former Russian province of Bessarabia; whether the Royal Roumanian Government has been approached by the Soviet Government of Russia with a view to the settlement of this question and the making of peace what advice has been tendered by His Majesty's Government on this question: and whether we have entered into any agreement with the Royal Roumanian Government to support Roumania if peace with Russia is not concluded?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, the future of Bessarabia has been the subject of discussion between the Supreme Council and the Roumanian Prime Minister. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. As to the third and fourth parts. His Majesty's Government have adopted
the same attitude in this regard towards Roumania as they had already taken towards Poland and the Baltic States.

POLAND AND CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been come to by the Peace Conference with reference to the frontiers between the new States of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia and Soviet Russia; if so, whether it is intended that the Soviet Government of Russia will eventually be consulted in this matter: and, if not, whether these new States will be advised to arrange an armistice with the Soviet Government with a view to coming to a provisional arrangement as to the frontiers and avoiding further fighting?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not clear from the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question what are the frontiers to which he is referring; but I may say that those between Poland and Soviet Russia have not finally been fixed, whereas Czecho-Slovakia and Soviet Russia are not co-terminous. As regards the remainder of the question, I have nothing to add to the full statements already made on these matters.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR BUREAU.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state who will be the British representatives on the Commission of Inquiry to be sent by the International Labour Bureau to Soviet Russia; whether the Liberal and Labour parties in this country will be invited to nominate representatives; when the Commission is expected to start for Russia; and whether the consent of the Soviet Government to the sending of this Commission is being sought?

The PRIME MINISTER: The arrangements for conducting, on behalf of the League of Nations, the enquiry into conditions in Russia will be entirely in the hands of the Council of the League. Until the Council has held a meeting, which it has not yet had time to do, I can give no information on the points raised by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN PRISONERS (SIBERIA).

Viscountess ASTOR: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the
present condition of the Austro-Hungarian prisoners in Siberia, especially those who are ill and suffering, the British Government will on humanitarian grounds expedite their repatriation by chartering one of the Japanese ships at present available in Vladivostock harbour for the immediate removal of the most urgent cases?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret to say that His Majesty's Government are not at present in a position to charter a vessel for the repatriation of Austro-Hungarian prisoners of war from Siberia. I will, however, have this proposal brought before the Council of the League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC APPOINTMENTS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the frequent difficulty and delay in filling diplomatic vacancies abroad, the Government will consider the suggestion of the appointment of capable women to fill certain of these important posts?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that my hon. Friend's proposal is practicable at present.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the right kind of women would be frequently more effective than old women of the wrong sex who so often misrepresent us abroad?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADES DISPUTES ACT, 1906.

Colonel NEWMAN: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that large sections of the population view with alarm and resentment the position created by The Trades Disputes Act, 1906; and if he will say whether it is his intention without delay to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the working of the Act and the amendments desirable thereto?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that there exists the widespread alarm and resentment suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, and it is not proposed to appoint a Royal Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

INCREASES OF RENT.

Colonal NEWMAN: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in large blocks of house property which have recently changed hands the new owners are, wherever the terms of the tenancy allow, giving the sitting tenant notice to quit or to purchase the property at a much advanced price; and whether, in view of the fact that further legislation on the subject has been forecasted and in view of the continued shortage of houses, the Government will legislate to protect the sitting tenant for a further defined period in the event of his agreeing to a stated percentage increase in his rent?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole question of the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts and of their extension, continuance or amendment is now being considered by the Committee which has been appointed, but I cannot anticipate their Report.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who is on this Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I cannot.

BUILDING MATERIAL (SHORTAGE).

Colonel BURN: 77.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is a shortage of building material, especially cement, at Torquay, and will he take steps to rectify this deficiency owing to which building operations are at a standstill.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): No information has reached me which suggests that there is a shortage of building material at Torquay. I will, however, make inquiries in the matter.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general shortage of building material throughout the country, and will he communicate with the Minister of Transport and endeavour to get some further transport facilities for building material?

Dr. ADDISON: I am doing my best.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREAD SUBSIDY.

Colonel NEWMAN: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to
the continuing, the diminishing, or the abolishing of the bread subsidy?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the House has already been informed, the whole question of the bread subsidy is at present under consideration, and I shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question this day week, when I hope to be in a position to make a definite statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND (TRAINING).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is great dissatisfaction among the blind in this country and also among the managers of institutions for their training and support in view of the delay in introducing legislation to deal with their position in the community; and whether, having regard to the urgency of this matter and the promise of the Government in the course of last Session, he will take steps to have legislation introduced with out delay or give facilities for the Bill presented by the hon. Member for North Salford?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is giving special consideration at this moment to the subject referred to in the question, in consultation with the Advisory Committee on the Blind, and it is hoped that some satisfactory steps may be taken in the near future to deal practically with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the very large number of Bills and Provisional Orders which are now being promoted by local authorities for necessary and urgent public work and other needs; whether any of these Bills and Orders deal with questions of area and amalgamation; whether, in view of the present position of national and local finance, any steps can be taken in general statute or otherwise to reduce the great expense of these promotions; and whether, having regard to the fact that the success of the Government's legislation depends largely on extended areas in such spheres as housing, transport, and
electricity, the Government will be prepared to give a general indication of opinion to the Committees considering these Bills in favour of such extended areas as being consistent with national and local needs and, by such indication of opinion, materially reduce the evidence and the expense of the inquiries?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, and my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, is giving special consideration just, now to the question whether it may not be practicable to arrange some changes in procedure which would lessen the expenditure in all cases of this nature: and he will shortly be consulting the Advisory Council on the subject In regard to the last part of the question, the decision in each case must depend on a large variety of considerations, both particular and general, and I am not at present in a position to give any such general indication of the Government's views as is suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 39.
asked the Prime Minister if lie proposes to introduce legislation during the present Session with a view of bringing the Sunday Observance Act into harmony with modern needs and with the object of reasonably safeguarding the day of rest from unnecessary trade and labour?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid there is no possibility of the Government dealing with the matter in the present Session. The Government are entirely in sympathy with the desire to restrict Sunday trading and Sunday work so far as is reasonably practicable, but it had proved impossible so far to find any solution of the question which would command general agreement. An attempt was made to deal with Sunday trading in 1911 in connection with the Shops Bill, but the proposals gave rise to so much controversy that they had to be dropped.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD STUFFS (EXPORTATION).

Mr. FORREST: 57.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the articles of food consumption whose exportation is forbidden, either in part or whole, from this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I would refer the hon. Member to the List of Export Prohibited Goods published fortnightly by the Board of Trade. I may add that in the case of the majority of articles of food consumption included in the list the export of certain quantities is allowed under licence.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASTE LAND RECLAMATION.

WASH (WORKS ON NORTHERN SHORE).

Mr. DOYLE: 58.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what steps, if any, have been taken to reclaim the great areas of waste land on the East and West Coasts, thereby finding employment for many unemployed men; and, if such work has not been undertaken, whether he contemplates taking action in the matter?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Works are now being carried out for the reclamation of land in the neighbourhood of Wainfleet, on the northern shore of the Wash. Several schemes for the reclamation of land were prepared subsequent to the Armistice, with a view to finding employment for demobilised men. In view, however, of the urgent need for the curtailment of all public expenditure, it was recently decided that none of these schemes, other than that already referred to, should be proceeded with.

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.

Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIER: 60.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can give the names of those, who will serve on the committee of scientists who are to investigate the problems connected with foot and mouth disease?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I regret that I am unable at present to announce the names of the scientists who will serve on the committee in connection with the problems of foot and mouth disease, but the names will be published as soon as the list is complete, probably within a few days.

HORSES (EXPORT).

Sir FRANCIS BLAKE: 61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of
Agriculture whether the export of horses to the Continent has now been resumed; whether he can give the number sent out and the number rejected as unfit during the months of November, December, and January: whether the latter are killed in this country and sent abroad for food; and whether he will consider an alteration in the Law whereby a declaration of the purpose for which each horse is exported shall be made and those intended for food shall be slaughtered in this country?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The total number of horses which have been passed for shipment by the Veterinary Inspectors of the Ministry at ports during the months of November, December, and January was 10,846. The number of horses rejected was 525. The Ministry have no information as to whether these were killed in the country and sent abroad for food. The Ministry do not consider that an alteration of the existing law is necessary, as under the Exportation of Horses Act, 1914, every horse to be exported must be certified by a Veterinary Inspector to be capable of being conveyed and worked without suffering.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

LIVE STOCK AND CORN,

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 62.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the future scarcity of live stock, he will restict the slaughter of young stock in this country: and whether steps will be taken to ensure the growing of sufficient corn to meet the nation's requirements in 1921?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Ministry are in constant communication with the Ministry of Food as to the slaughter of young stock, but in view of the comparative failure of the various orders that have been made with the object of restricting slaughter, it is considered undesirable to make any further order of the kind at present. It is hoped that the situation will right itself when meat is decontrolled, but if not the matter will be further considered. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the recent announcement of the Government's policy with prices of home-grown wheat
which it is hoped will have the effect of stimulating production to a considerable extent.

Captain FITZROY: Arising out of the reply to the second part of the question, and in view of the importance of the question, and that doubt may not exist as to whether the Government policy announced here to-day will have the desired effect, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the Prime Minister whether he will give an early opportunity for a discussion of this question?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: So far as I know, there is to be a discussion on Wednesday night. No doubt the question will be raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MUSEUM.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 71.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of hotels, public institutions, town halls, and other public buildings respectively, which, having been requisitioned during the war, have been released since the Armistice, and the reason why important portions of the British Museum still occupied by the Registry of Friendly Societies have not been already released and rendered available for the use of students and of the public?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): Of the 18 hotels and 24 public buildings which were requisitioned for the accommodation of office staffs, 10 of the former and 17 of the latter have been released. It has unfortunately been necessary to retain the Registry of Friendly Societies at the British Museum, owing to the difficulty of obtaining suitable alternative accommodation, but, as I informed the hon. and learned Member on the 23rd ultimo, the Museum will be completely vacated by the Government staffs now in occupation by Easter next.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Why, instead of releasing some of these hotels, was the British Museum not released earlier, and thereby great public advantage incurred?

Sir A. MOND: I cannot catch what the hon. Gentleman says.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I want to know why it was not decided to free the British
Museum and retain some of these hotels, which are nothing like the same importance to the public?

Sir A. MOND: Over 85 per cent. of the British Museum has been freed for a long time, and a very small staff left, occupying only a small portion of the Museum. For these I have long been trying to find accommodation. It would be very uneconomical to keep a large hotel in order to house a small staff.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Are not the Assyrian and Egyptian galleries, the print collections and a few of the Roman and Greek rooms kept occupied and the public refused admittance?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman inform me in December that the British Museum would be entirely evacuated within two months?

Sir A. MOND: I have been endeavouring to bring about entire evacuation, and hope in a few days to achieve it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Would the right hon. Gentleman persuade the trustees to open the print-room to the general public and not merely on days for students?

Sir A. MOND: I am afraid I have no control over the trustees.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR MINISTRY (HEADQUARTERS).

Viscount CURZON: 72.
asked the First Commissioner of Works why it is not in the public interest for the amount of the rent of the premises in Kingsway occupied by the headquarters of the Air Ministry to be disclosed; and under what Vote they will appear?

Sir A. MOND: The publication of the amount of the rent in this case would not only be objected to by the landlord, but would also be likely to prejudice my Department in its negotiations with other owners of property in the neighbourhood. The rent will be included in the Vote for Public Buildings.

Sir F. HALL: Is it to be understood that the rent charge is so light that it is inadvisable to make it public?

Sir A. MOND: Absolutely

Sir F. HALL: Why should not the Department be debited with a proper and fair rent?

Sir A. MOND: I have pointed out in my answer. We have secured very favourable terms. We should not be able to go on obtaining favourable terms if the landlord knew that the rent he had fixed was smaller than he might have obtained, and was going to be published here.

Mr. BILLING: Can we have the name of the landlord?

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

INJURIES TO WORKMEN.

Mr. G TERRELL: 64.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions the exact conditions under which he holds a fund from which compassionate grants can be made to persons who have sustained injury while engaged on munition work; whether he is in any way restricted from making grants to persons who were engaged by private firms in the manufacture of munitions; whether in the case of Miss G. George, of Chippenham, he has taken into consideration that at the time of the accident she was only 20 years of age; that she only received £30 compensation for an injury to her eye; that two years subsequently the eye had to be removed; and that now she is threatened with total blindness; and whether this is a case requiring the most sympathetic treatment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Hope): A limited fund is at the disposal of the Department from which, in cases of distress, small grants may be made to direct employees of the Department discharged in circumstances rendering them ineligible for Awards under the Superannuation Act; or, in case of death in the service, to their dependants. No fund is at the disposal of the Department from which grants may be made to employees of private firms. I understand that a lump sum of £30 was accepted on behalf of Miss George in full settlement of her claim against her employers in respect of the injury; and that this amount was paid to her "next friend" through the County Court in the manner prescribed by the Workmen's Compensation Acts.

Mr. TERRELL: Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether this was reasonable compensation to be paid, and is there not some other fund from which in so
extremely hard case such as this some other compensation can be paid?

Mr. HOPE: This was a question between Miss George and her employers, who were a private firm, and I am advised that we have no fund from which we can make a grant.

WAR STORES (SURPLUS).

Major GLYN: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, in the opinion of the representatives of the Disposals Board in France and Flanders, about 5,500 men are all that are at present required for those services; and whether arrangements have now been made for the guarding of stores that have been disposed of to the French Government in all the forward areas and certain ports and the Dieppe area to be performed by the French police authorities?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): It has now been agreed with the War Office in France that 5,000 men are sufficient for the services of the Disposal Board in France. This number it is anticipated will rapidly be reduced. Arrangements have been made with the French Government that the responsibility for the custody of stores disposed of to them shall be undertaken by the French police authorities as from the date of transfer.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that many of these dumps have disappeared and cannot be accounted for?

Mr. KELLAWAY: My hon. Friend will do well not to attach too much importance to accounts of the kind that appear in the picturesque Press.

Mr. SITCH: 66.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he is aware that the Disposal Board's official organ, "Surplus," dated 16th February, contains the announcement that civilian suits are available for sale by the Board through private treaty; whether on the following day, 17th February, he authorised the despatch to the Bradford Corporation of a telegram to the effect that civilian suits were no longer available for disposal; will he explain the discrepancy in these two statements; did the Board receive an offer from the Corporation named of 40s. each for 5,000 civilian suits, which offer was ultimately increased, on 13th February, to 45s. per
suit; whether at any time similar suits have been disposed of in small or large quantities at less than 45s. each to private traders; and has he received representations from the Bradford and District Chamber of Trade and/or any other private interests with the view to stopping any further supplies of civilian suits or other clothing to the Bradford Corporation?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The statements contained in the first parts of the question are correct. The proofs of "Surplus" are necessarily corrected by the various Sections several days prior to the date of publication, and it is clearly stated in that publication that all goods are offered subject to their being unsold at the time when applications are received. With regard to the latter parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by me in the House on the 25th February to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Smethwick. No quantities, either large or small, of similar suits have been sold to anyone at less than 45s., and no representations of the kind referred to have been received.

Mr. BRIANT: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what is the number of suits of clothes which has recently been sold to a single purchaser: and what was the price obtained?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The number of suits of clothes recently sold to a single purchaser is approximately 577,000. The Ministry extensively advertised for three weeks offering small parcels of twenty-five suits for sale, but these offers met with a very poor response. In view of the small extent of the sales of small lots, and the time it would have taken to dispose of the large quantity in lots of twenty-five, the Ministry decided to sell the lot referred to. The sale price was 45s. per suit, and the Ministry imposed the condition that the retail prices at which the suits are disposed of to the public in the United Kingdom should not exceed 63s. per suit.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 67.
asked whether discharges of ex-soldiers employed at Woolwich Arsenal have been cancelled or suspended: and, if so, for how long?

Mr. KELLAWAY: A number of disabled ex-service men were under notice owing to the completion of the work on which they were engaged, but I suspended these notices for three weeks pending the result of inquiries with the object of finding other employment for the men in question.

VICTORIA WORKS, CHESHIRE.

Mr. ROSE: 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, in the case of the sale of the Victoria Works, Wincham, Cheshire, for £60,000, due regard was taken by the Disposals Board of the value of the plant and whether he is aware that the Salt Union, the purchasers of the factory, held a private sale of only a part of the plant and machinery, and realised nearly £60,000?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Due regard was given in fixing the proportion of the purchase money for the machinery and plant passing with the deal. The £60,000 was not the only consideration for the sale, as the Ministry, in addition, saved liabilities. It is understood that at the recent sale by the Salt Union of the major portion of the plant and machinery only about £22,000 was realised.

Mr. ROSE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will read a signed statement which I will place in his hands: will he promise that the writer shall be in no way penalised for the writing: and, in the light of that statement, will he answer further questions of which I will give him notice?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I will read with pleasure anything my hon. Friend puts into my hand.

Mr. ROSE: I take it that the writer will not be victimised in any way?

Mr. KELLAWAY: As I have not seen the statement, I have no difficulty in giving that undertaking.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

OFFICERS' PENSIONS.

Colonel YATE: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps are being taken to increase the pensions of the widows, children, and dependants of deceased officers of the Indian Army, the Indian Medical Service, and the Royal Indian Marine?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The subject is now engaging the attention of the Government of India, who have informed me that they will communicate their views as soon as possible.

Colonel YATE: 74.
asked whether, considering the numbers of officers who are hesitating to join the Indian Army until they know what rates of pension they will be entitled to, he will now state by what date the revised rates of pension for the Indian Army and the Indian Medical Service will be published?

Mr. FISHER: I regret that I am not yet able to state on what date the revised rates of pension for the Indian Army and the Indian Medical Service will be published.

Colonel YATE: Will it be soon?

Mr. FISHER: I hope so.

Colonel YATE: 75.
asked whether the new rates of pay for the Royal Indian Marine are applicable to all officers in that service with effect from the 1st July, 1919, whether serving, sick, or on leave?

Mr. FISHER: The new rates of pay for officers of the Royal Indian Marine apply to those officers only who are on duty, and not to those on leave or sick furlough. Leave pay is at present under consideration.

Colonel YATE: What reason is there why they are not applicable to the men on leave and furlough?

Mr. FISHER: The matter is under consideration.

Colonel YATE: I will put down a further question.

NEPAL (WAR SERVICES).

Mr. FORREST: 76.
asked whether any and, if so, what recognition has been made to Nepal for her services in the War?

Mr. FISHER: The Government of India have offered the Nepalese Government an annual present of 10 lakhs of rupees, as a mark of their high appreciation of the assistance rendered by Nepal during the War. It is understood that the offer has been accepted. The invaluable assistance rendered personally by the Prime Minister of Nepal has been recognised by the grant of the honorary rank of General in
the British Army and by the bestowal of a high British decoration. Decorations have also been conferred on a number of distinguished Nepalese officers.

Sir J. D. REES: Is this in addition to any previously existing grant or a new departure?

Mr. FISHER: It is a new departure.

Oral Answers to Questions — LUNACY STATISTICS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 78.
asked the Minister of Health how many persons, male and female, are at present in public or private lunatic asylums; how many of these are ex-service men; and how many are voluntary boarders or temporarily detained?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. On the 1st January, 1920, there were in public or private lunatic asylums in England and Wales 96,344 patients (males 42,294, females 54,050).
These included 3,739 ex-service men classified as "service" patients, and a small number of ex-service men whose classification as "service" patients the Ministry of Pensions had found themselves unable to sanction, or whose classification as such was pending.
There were on the same date 270 persons (males 108, females 102) voluntary boarders in private asylums, but none temporarily detained.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be possible to concentrate these ex-service men in one or two establishments and give them special treatment?

Major BAIRD: I am afraid I shall require notice of that question.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Have we any statistics showing how many persons are at largo who ought to be in asylums?

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Sir ALFRED YEO: 79.
asked the Minister of Health whether the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee on the Rent Restriction Acts cover the cases of rents of shops and offices; and, if not, whether the terms of reference will be extended to include these cases?

Dr. ADDISON: The terms of reference are sufficiently wide to cover the cases to which my hon. Friend refers.

Sir A. YEO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of immediately considering this question, as rents are being raised from £300 to £1,760 a year?

Dr. ADDISON: We are doing so now.

Sir A. YEO: Then get on with it.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: 80.
asked whether, in view of the fact that the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment), Act, 1919, expires on the 30th June next, and of the great uncertainty prevailing in the country, he can give an assurance that a full statement of the policy of the Government on this subject will be made before next Lady Day, and that further legislation will be introduced in sufficient time for all persons affected to take advantage of such legislation?

Dr. ADDISON: The Government are fully alive to the fact that, if the Acts are to be continued, it will be necessary that legislation for this purpose should be passed before the 30th June, and the Committee which has been appointed to consider this question, and is already at work, is well aware of its urgency.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of notices to quit will be given before next Lady Day, and ought not landlords to know what the policy of the Government is going to be?

Dr. ADDISON: We hope it will be possible to announce our decision in time.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Who are the members of this Committee, and how many landlords are there upon it?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT (AMENDING BILL).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ALFRED WARREN: 81.
asked whether, having regard to the importance attached by approved societies to the promised amending Bill to the National Health Insurance Act, he will state at what period in this Session the Bill will be introduced?

Dr. ADDISON: The Bill will be introduced to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS.

Sir A. WARREN: 82.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the position of registrars of births and deaths, whose fees and emoluments still stand at the pre-War rate; and if, in view of the hardship thus imposed upon this class of public servant, he will take steps to bring about an increase in the scale of their fees?

Dr. ADDISON: I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the reply which I gave on the 10th April last to the hon. Member for Lincoln on the same proposal, which is not possible without legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL RATES (INCREASE).

Mr. HURD: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the strong feeling expressed by local authorities throughout the country respecting the increase in local rates, especially for purposes of a national character, such as education, roads, police, and public health; and whether, seeing the delay in measures to readjust local and Imperial finance, he will devise some interim proposals to relieve the ratepayers in respect of this class of national expenditure?

Dr. ADDISON: I have received a number of representations from local authorities in this sense, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the matter.

Mr. HURD: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with this matter?

Dr. ADDISON: There is no question more complicated than this question, and I am not prepared to say when a statement can be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAUPER LUNATICS.

Mr. HURD: 84.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing the continued increase in the cost of the maintenance of pauper lunatics and the totally inadequate sum now repaid under the Local Government Act of 1888, he will, pending the contemplated reform of the Poor Law, suggest to the Treasury that boards of guardians should be repaid at least one-half
of the actual cost to them of every lunatic pauper maintained in a county asylum?

Dr. ADDISON: There is no legal authority under which the action suggested could be, taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AUXILIARY POSTMAN, BALLYMENA.

Major O'NEILL: 85.
asked the Postmaster-General on what duty Mr. John Wilson, formerly a rural auxiliary postman at Ballymena, is now employed; whether he has served in the Post Office for over twelve years and always given satisfaction; whether he has recently been passed over for promotion to a full-time-appointment; and, if so, can he give the reasons?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Mr. Wilson is still employed as an auxiliary postman at Ballymena. Full-time postmanships are reserved for boy messengers and ex-soldiers and sailors; and, as Mr. Wilson has not served with the Forces, it was not possible to consider him in connection with a new appointment which has been created at Ballymena.

Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular man is prevented from serving on account of a very serious illness in his family, and cannot some special consideration be given to him?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this man is Grand Master of the local Orange Lodge, and should he not be given some special distinction?

POSTAL CLERKS AND ASSISTANTS.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 86.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postmaster of the South Frederick Street Post Office, South Shields, is employing two clerks on post office work whose wages are 14s. and 10s., respectively; whether these payments are in return for a full week of eight hours
per day; and whether, seeing that the minimum paid to shop assistants in this thoroughfare is 28s. per week, he will issue instructions for a general inquiry as to the wages paid by his sub-postmasters?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am making inquiry into this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 87.
asked the Post master-General whether the postmaster of the Gloddaeth Street Post Office, Llandudno, agreed in October last to raise the wages of his assistants to 30s. per week plus £2 war bonus monthly, 20s. per week plus 24s. war bonus monthly, 17s. per week plus 20s. war bonus monthly, respectively; whether, despite this undertaking, the amounts which are being paid are 40s., 26s. and 22s. per week; and whether he will instruct his subordinate to pay the agreed rates?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: In reply to a question on the 13th November last, I informed the hon. Member that the weekly wages of these assistants, including an amount in respect of war bonus, were 40s., 26s., and 22s., respectively. The hon. Member then requested that the bonus should be paid weekly; and I do not understand why he now proposes monthly payments, which would in fact give the assistants slightly less in the aggregate than they are getting now.

PARCELS POST, ITALY.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 88.
asked the Postmaster-General whether since the railway strike in Italy parcels for that country are no longer accepted by the Post Office in this country; and how soon the delivery of parcels to Italy will recommence?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The acceptance of parcels for Italy at post offices in this country was resumed last week.

DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS, DUBLIN.

Captain REDMOND: 89.
asked whether the Dublin Post Office, as a consequence of the martial law Proclamation, has ceased to perform its functions in that city between the hours of 11.30 p.m. and 5 a.m.; whether it is a fact that no telegrams are delivered between these hours: and whether, in view of the fact that this public Department is unable to perform its due services to the people, causing
serious inconvenience and loss, he will state what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: In view of the risks involved in passing through the streets of Dublin, the night messenger staff object to undertaking the delivery of telegrams between midnight and 5 a.m., and in the circumstances I do not think it would be reasonable to require them to do so. There is, therefore, no alternative but to suspend the ordinary messenger service and to deliver telegrams by telephone where possible. Every effort is being made to expedite delivery by this means.

Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Dublin newspapers are seriously inconvenienced and have made protests on this question, and can he not do anything to alleviate that condition of things?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I have no doubt they are inconvenienced, but I do not see that I can do anything to relieve the situation.

Captain REDMOND: Could the right hon Gentleman not deliver the telegram by tank?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

PLYMOUTH (STOREHOUSEMEN).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 90.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to confirm in the substantive rank of storehousemen those men who have held the position of acting storehousemen in the Royal William Yard, Plymouth, on various dates since 1st August, 1914.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The question of confirming a few acting Storehousemen at Royal William Yard and the other victualling yards is under consideration, but the numbers to be confirmed must be limited to actual vacancies in the permanent staff, which, I am advised, are quite few in number.

DOVER (CLOSING).

Viscount DUNCANNON: (by Private Notice)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that the Admiralty Dockyard at Dover is to be
closed; and, if so, whether he will reconsider a decision which would add considerably to the large number of unemployed in Dover as well as seriously damage the interests of the town in other ways?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. The post-war needs of the Fleet do not justify the continuance of our naval activities at Dover. We shall, therefore, be compelled to close them down as from 31st March, though there may be a small amount of reconditioning work upon trawlers or drifters continued after that date. We took care, of course, to give early notice to our employés of this necessity.
Our work at Dover—as at Invergordon, also to be closed down—has been very largely War expansion work.
At the present time, there are 360 employés, most of whom, I am afraid, will have to leave us. About 50 of these, however, are established men, or men transferred from other yards These, of course, will be invited to return to their original place of employment.
The Controller of the Navy and myself are receiving a deputation from Dover on Saturday next on the matter; but I confess I can see no way of meeting what will, no doubt, be their request to us.

Viscount DUNCANNON: Will the Admiralty consider the possibility of arranging for the existing works to be put to some commercial use?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That depends on the Colvin Report. Nothing has come Dover way yet.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May we assume that the established men at Dover will not displace established men at other yards?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (EXAMINATIONS).

Mr. MOLES: 91.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the result of the Civil Service examination held on 6th January, 1920, under the competitive examinations regulation for junior appointments (intermediate class) in the Home Civil Service; is he aware that only eight candidates have been declared successful, whereas in the January, 1915, examination for similar appointments over 120 candidates were given places; is he aware that the candidates who sat for this examination feel
aggrieved at the very small number of posts; and whether, in view of these facts, he will see to it that a greater number of appointments will now be given or, in the alternative, that those candidates who have qualified will be promoted in the departments in which they are serving?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): At the competitive examination for junior appointments held on the 6th January last, admission to which was limited to candidates previously employed in the Civil Service, 60 candidates reached the qualifying standard. Eight vacancies are available for allotment to the candidates, and eight candidates have consequently been declared successful. If additional vacancies are reported the list of successful candidates may be extended; but the Civil Service Commissioners cannot control the occurrence of vacancies and can only fill such vacancies as are reported to them. One hundred and fifteen appointments were offered to candidates on the list resulting from the open competitive examination of January, 1915. Of these appointments 36 were to the situation of Assistant Surveyor of Taxes, which was included among junior appointments in 1915, but has since been withdrawn from that class; 40 were to the Admiralty, which has reported no vacancies to be filled on this occasion. The appointments to the Admiralty were for special duty in connection with the War and the number was exceptionally large.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE PENSIONERS (RETURN).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 93.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the number of State pensioners, Naval, Military, Civil Service, police, and teachers, specifying the number under each head, now being paid at pre-war rates, and how many, specifying the number under each head, are in receipt of pensions of £l and under, and what is the lowest pension paid under each head to any single individual; and will he further say what is the age for compulsory retirement in the Navy, Army, Civil Service, police and teaching staff?

Mr. BALDWIN: In view of the amount of labour involved in analysing the nominal lists of pensioners I regret that I am, for the most part, unable to provide
the information desired. For the Civil Service alone it would be necessary to examine individually between 15,000 and 20,000 cases. There is, however, a return of pre-war police pensioners in House of Commons Paper No. 241 of 1919. A civil servant is required to retire on reaching the age of 65; as regards police and teachers there is no general age for compulsory retirement, nor is there an age limit applicable to all ranks of the Navy and Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMISSARY OFFICE, EDINBURGH.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 97.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the staff of His Majesty's Commissary Office, Edinburgh, are dissatisfied with salaries and conditions of service, promotion and increase of salary being contingent upon a vacancy arising through the death or resignation of a member of the staff, and no pensions being available on retirement; whether numerous applications for increases of salary have been repeatedly refused, the grant for salaries having been increased by only £30 during the past 25 years, apart from a sum of £150 for two additional clerks, notwithstanding the enormous increase in the work of the department and the fact that this office remits a large surplus each year to His Majesty's Exchequer; and whether the committee being appointed to inquire into the manner in which the grievances of the sheriff clerks and their staffs should be redressed will also be authorised to review the case of His Majesty's Commissary Office and the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. B. Morison): My right hon. Friend has had brought to his notice complaints by the staff of the Commissary Office of the nature referred to. Applications have been received from time to time from the Commissary Clerk for increased grants, and have been considered on their merits, regard being had to conditions obtaining in similar offices. My right hon. Friend is disposed, as advised, to agree with the suggestion that the position of the staff of the Commissary Office might be considered by the Committee referred to in the last part of the question, and he is in consultation with the Treasury on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER (GRAVITY).

Mr. LUNN: 100.
asked the Food Controller what was the permitted average gravity of beer and the permitted total output at the date of the signing of the Armistice; and what successive relaxations, with the dates of each, have been made since?

Mr. McCURDY: The permitted average gravity of beer at the date of the signing of the Armistice was 1,030 degrees for brewers in Great Britain and 1,045 degrees for brewers in Ireland. The permitted output for the United Kingdom at that date was 12,590,000 standard barrels per annum. The permitted average gravity for the quarter ending 31st March, 1919, was 1,032 in Great Britain and 1,047 in Ireland. The permitted output for the same period was at the rate of 15,270,000 standard barrels per annum. The permitted average gravity for the quarter ending June 30th, 1919, was 1,040 in Great Britain and 1,047 in Ireland. The permitted output for the same period was at the rate of 25,454,000 standard barrels per annum. As from July 1st, 1919, the permitted average gravity has been 1,044 in Great Britain and 1,051 in Ireland, and the output has been unrestricted.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (READING DISTRESS COMMITTEE).

Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: 101.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can see his way clear to make a grant of money to the Reading Distress Committee in consequence of about 2,000 persons being registered at the unemployment registry; if he is aware that about 1,200 of them are adult males and a number of them are receiving no financial help at all; if he is aware that the Reading Distress Committee have been finding some useful employment for a number of them; if he is aware that the old Local Government Board made Government grants of money from time to time to various distress committees in the different parts of the country with a view to finding useful employment for both men and women who were out of work; and if he will take action in the matter?

Dr. ADDISON: I have been asked to reply to this question. As the Distress Committee for the area referred to have already been informed, there are no funds available out of which a grant could be made to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (INDIAN SERVICE).

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: 105.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that many officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps serving in India have been in that country for nine or ten years and appear to have little prospect of relief; and if he will state what steps are being taken to expedite their relief?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): There are forty-one officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps still in India whose tour of service has expired, and every effort is being made to release them as other Regular officers become available. Twenty-four officers are under orders to proceed to India, and these will be employed for the relief of tour-expired officers and towards completing the permanent establishment of the Royal Army Medical Corps in India.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELFAST DOCKERS' STRIKE.

Mr. DONALD: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Labour, if he will state the present position regarding the dockers' strike in Belfast, having regard to the serious shortage of coal and seeing that arrangements have been made for supplying coal to Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman again take steps to bring the parties together with a view to a settlement?

Sir R. HORNE: I regret that I am not in a position to give to the hon. Member detailed information in reply to his question, but I can assure him that my officers in Ireland, who have been constantly in touch with the parties, will take all possible steps to effect a settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE (SHORTAGE).

Sir R. COOPER: (by Private Notice)
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps he has taken to prevent the stoppage of industry in South Staffordshire owing to the almost complete absence of coal supplies?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understood that this question refers to the effect of shortage of supplies of coal to the Mond Gas
Company upon industries in South Staffordshire.
I have been informed this morning that the position of the Company is being improved by the action of the local Coal and Coke Supplies Committee, who are arranging for additional supplies to be delivered during this week. The firm have ample supplies of slack. I am advised that there is no reason to anticipate stoppage of the gas works.

Sir R. COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this difficulty applies not only to the Mond Gas Company, but to some other large employers, and will he, if representations are made to him, take immediate steps to remove any danger of the stoppage of the iron industry?

Mr. SEDDON: Cannot arrangements be made for the coal obtained in a district being kept there instead of being taken out, with the effect that the carrying on of the industries in the locality is made impossible?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Member will give me the names of the other companies affected I will see what can be done. But it is not merely a question

for the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller; it also affects the Ministry of Transport; and I cannot undertake without consulting the Ministry to say that any consignment of coal can be carried to any particular place.

Sir R. COOPER: Is my hon. Friend aware that these industries in question are surrounded by coal pits, and therefore it is not a question of transport?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have lived there all my life.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

The Right Hon. Herbert Henry Asquith, for the Burgh of Paisley.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUATION) BILL.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill to exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 51.

Division No. 22.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Falcon, Captain Michael


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Burn, Col. C. R, (Devon, Torquay)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Astor, Viscountess
Butcher, Sir John George
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.


Atkey, A. R.
Campbell, J. D. G.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Baird, John Lawrence
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Foreman, Henry


Baldwin, Stanley
Carr, W. Theodore
Forrest, Walter


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
France, Gerald Ashburner


Barnett, Major R. W.
Casey, T. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barnston, Major Harry
Cautley, Henry S.
Gange, E. Stanley


Barrand, A. R.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Gardner, Ernest


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Barrie, Hugh Thorn (Lon'derry, N.)
Chadwick, R. Burton
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Glyn, Major Ralph


Beck, Sir C. (Essex, Saffron Walden)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Goff, Sir R. Park


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clough, Robert
Grant, James A.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Coats, Sir Stuart
Green, Albert (Derby)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Bigland, Alfred
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Greig, Colonel James William


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Griggs, Sir Peter


Blair, Major Reginald
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Blane, T. A.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page
Hanna, George Boyle


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Haslam, Lewis


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Britton, G. B.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Donald, Thompson
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Higham, Charles Frederick


Brown, Captain D. C.
Duncannon, viscount
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Hills, Major John Waller
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Hinds, John
Mason, Robert
Seddon, J. A.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Mitchell, William Lane
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Hood, Joseph
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Morison, Thomas Brash
Simm, M. T.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Morris, Richard
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Morrison, Hugh
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Houston, Robert P.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. E.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Howard, Major S. G.
Mosley, Oswald
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Hurd, Percy A.
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Stevens, Marshall


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Neal, Arthur
Stewart, Gershom


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Jellett, William Morgan
Newton, Major Harry Kottingham
Sugden, W. H.


Jesson, C.
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Taylor, J.


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Kellaway, Frederick George
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


King, Commander Henry Douglas
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Tickler, Thomas George


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Townley, Maximillan G.


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Tryon, Major George Clement


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Vickers, Douglas


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Parker, James
Wallace, J.


Lindsay, William Arthur
Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Lloyd, George Butler
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx)
Wason, John Cathcart


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Perring, William George
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Whitla, Sir William


Lort-Williams, J.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colone Assheton
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Prescott, Major W. H.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Purchase, H. G.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Lyon, Laurance
Ramsden, G. T.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Rankin, Captain James S.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Raper, A. Baldwin
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel
Woolcock, William James U.


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Rees, Sir John D. (Nottingham, East)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Reid, D. D.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Macmaster, Donald
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Younger, Sir George


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)



Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rodger, A. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Magnus, Sir Philip
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Holmes, J. Stanley
Robertson, John


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Johnstone, Joseph
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Royce, William Stapleton


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Spoor, B. C.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Briant, Frank
Kiley, James D.
Tootill, Robert


Cairns, John
Lawson, John J.
Waterson, A. E.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lunn, William
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wignall, James


Gaibraith, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Glanville, Harold James
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hay ward, Major Evan
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Hirst, G. H.
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Mr. George Thorne and Mr. Hogge.

BILLS PRESENTED.

REGULATION OF HOURS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL,

"to regulate the Hours and Conditions of Employment," presented by Mr.
WILLIAM THORNE; supported by Mr. Bowerman, Mr. John Jones, Mr. Hayday, Mr. Alfred Short, Mr. John Davison, and Mr. Clynes; to be read a second time upon Friday, 19th March, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL,

"to amend the Acts relating to National Health Insurance," presented by Dr. ADDISON: supported by Mr. Munro and Mr. Macpherson; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

Orders of the Day — WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

As amended, further considered.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Regulations continued.


Number of Regulation.
Subject Matter.
Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which Extension is made.


2B
Power to requisition War material, stores, &c.
So far as relates to the powers of the Food Controller, and to flax.


2BB
Power to vary terms of sub-contracts.
So far as relates to cases where certificates or Orders have at the passing of this Act been issued.


2c
Power to take possession of and fell trees.
So far as relates to timber of which possession has been taken at the passing of this Act.


2E
Power to regulate dealings in War material, stores, &c.
So far as relates to the powers of the Food Controller, and to fax and clinical thermometers.


2F to 2J 2JJ
Powers of the Food Controller. Power to regulate articles of commerce other than food.
So far as relates to coal (including anthracite and all other kinds of coal, coke, briquettes, and any-other solid fuel of which coal or coke is a constituent), gas and electricity.


2JJJ
Power to regulate the transport of goods by road.
As if in Subsection (1) the words "and thereby furthering the" successful prosecution of the "War or otherwise securing the" defence of the realm" were omitted.


2o
Keeping of pigs
Subsection (5), and, so far as relates to permissions granted and in force at the date of the passing of this Act, the remainder of the Regulation.


5A
Power to take over control and maintenance of highways.
So far as relates to highways which have been damaged by Government use before the passing of this Act, and as if for the words "for the" purpose of securing the public "safety and the defence of the" realm," there were substituted the words" in the national "interests."


6A
Power to exempt factories and workshops from provisions of Act of 1901.
So far as relates to Orders authorising, subject to the weekly limit of hours allowed by Act of 1901—




(a) employment of women and young persons in shifts (not being night shifts) averaging not more than eight hours;




(b) employment of women and young persons at special times in creameries and cheese-making works;




(c) night employment of male young persons over 17 years of age in wire-drawing;




(d) minor adjustments of times of starting and stopping work and of meal intervals.

Debate resumed on Amendment [24th February] to leave out Regulation 2B.—[Colonel Penry Williams.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." Debate resumed.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: This is an Amendment to leave out the Regulation which confers upon the Food Controller the power compulsorily to requisition material such as was enjoyed by the Army and Navy during the War. We shall come later to the Amendment dealing with the general powers of the Food Controller. The point for the moment is simply this question of the power of the Food Controller compulsorily to acquire stores, and principally flax in Ireland, at a price to be fixed by the Government. The learned Attorney-General, in speaking on this Amendment at the end of Tuesday's Debate, rather suggested that these powers only applied to flax which was grown last year, and on that ground he pointed out that the Regulation was not of very great moment. His point was that as some of the crop had been requisitioned it would be unfair not to continue the control, so that all growers might be treated alike. Whatever happens to the War, whether it be officially declared to be at an end or not before August 31st, these powers are being continued till August 31st, and it is quite possible, unless we carry the Amendment, that the Government may exercise their powers to requisition this year's crop. I have seen a letter from the Irish Flax Producers' Association of Armagh, in which they state:
By reason of the action of the Flax Control Board in refusing to take off the control,
flax-growers are obliged to sell then-crop at least at half its value, and as this extra gain is going into the pockets of the spinners we most strongly object to any Government Department being made the instrument to benefit one class of the community at the expense of the other. There are at last fifty thousand flax growers and less than forty spinners, so that a gross injustice is being done to the farmer.
That is the objection which the Irish Flax Producers' Association raises against the continuance of these powers in the hands of the Government. The delay in renewing our trade relations with Russia is at once the fault of the Government and is the argument which they themselves adopt for the necessity for continuing this control of Irish flax. There is another point which is of the very greatest importance, particularly to the Irish growers. This Bill consists of two parts. Part of it continues certain regulations till August 31st, but the other part, which is Sub-section (4) of Section 2, continues in Ireland all the Regulations for one year after the conclusion of peace. Therefore, the principal flax-growers of the United Kingdom not only suffer under this provision of the Schedule, but they may be made to suffer under the general provision which continues in the hands of the Government all the powers of all the Regulations for one year after the conclusion of the War. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Sub-section (4) of Section 2, he will see that if a Proclamation suspending Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm Act be issued, then all the Regulations then in force shall be continued. The Chief Secretary told me the other day that a Proclamation has indeed been issued for the whole of Ireland, so that we find that these powers for controlling
the price of flax and limiting the profit which the Ulster flax growers may make on their crop by no means terminate on August 31st, but may be continued for one year after the conclusion of the War, whenever that date is fixed by an Order-in-Council. In view of those facts, I submit that the Amendment should receive more general examination, if not more general support, and I press it on the serious consideration of the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Major KERR-SMILEY: This control of flax was introduced and accepted for patriotic reasons, but now that the War is over, I submit that there is no reason why the sacrifices of patriotism should be extended to times of peace. The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was, that if the Government were to allow the remainder of the flax crops to be sold in the open market, it would be obviously unfair to those who had kept their bargain with the Government and sold their crops at the price fixed. I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a good or a sound argument; in fact, the old adage that two wrongs do not make a right might very aptly be applied to this case. I do not see what good we are going to do by refusing to take off the control. It will simply mean that the farmers will hold up their stocks until flax is decontrolled next year. I understand that at the present time many mills are running half-time owing to a great shortage of raw material, and by refusing to take off the control the Government will bring about a very serious situation. I do not think that the farmers can be blamed.
If a man has something to sell and he has definite information that by not selling it in May, but by holding it until August, he will double his profit, you cannot blame him. The hon. Gentleman has told the farmers that he is going to decontrol flax in August, and they will naturally hold up their flax, and by so doing they will very seriously affect the manufacturers. At a large public meeting held last Friday in the Ulster Hall, Belfast, under the auspices of the newly formed Irish Flax Producers' Association, this resolution was unanimously passed:
That we hold our flax until such time as it is free from nil control.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade what the Government are going to do? Will they use force in order to make the farmers sell? I do not think that the Government could possibly do that. Therefore-I earnestly ask them to reconsider their decision; otherwise, a very serious state of things will be brought about.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: This question of control at the present time is very unfortunate. It is not the easy question which it would at first appear to be. Many arguments are being used on both sides in order to support the different points of view. The argument at present being used by the Irish farmers is something like this: "Because we are controlled we are only getting £300 a ton for our flax." They state that flax produced by growers in England purchased by the Irish spinners is sold at upwards of £600 a ton and that the English flax farmers are not controlled. They also state that the Continental flax is being purchased by the Ulster spinners at prices ranging from £1,000 to £1,300 a ton, and, of course, the Continental growers are not controlled. Their difficulty is this, that they, because they are controlled, are only getting £300 a ton, while other flax growers are getting double or three or four times as much. Naturally, the farmer regards that as a very difficult thing to understand. He docs not appreciate the reason why he is only getting £300 a ton while others are getting so much more. The Government's position is perfectly plain. In the spring of last year, after the Armistice, the Government were evidently under the impression that it would not be advisable to control or have anything more to do with flax, and the trade looked to be in a very precarious condition, both for farmers, spinners, and the trade generally. Under the circumstances the farmers and the spinners approached the Government and pointed out the position they would be in if flax was decontrolled suddenly, stating that there would be a considerable decrease in the sowing of flax in 1919. Although the Government Department did not wish to control flax, after the grave representations made by the spinners and the flax growers, they decided that the flax should continue to be controlled.
The House will understand that previous to this the control price of flax was
35s. to 45s. per stone according to grade. It is rather a technical matter, but for simplicity I would point out that flax is graded in six different qualities, and according as the grading is done, whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, the flax grower receives anything from 35s. to 45s per stone. The Armistice came, and the whole of the trade was faced with the great difficulty as to whether or not the whole of the flax would be required. The farmers were very keen to know how they stood for 1919, and whether they would get the price which they had got in 1918. The Government, so far as I can understand the situation, although they did not wish to control the flax in 1919, arranged to control it and to ensure that the farmer should get a price 10s. less than in 1918, that is, instead of getting 35s. to 45s. a stone he should get from 25s. to 35s. a stone. The Government believed that that was a binding agreement with the farmers. In June the position in Ulster in connection with the trade looked very black. The Government were no longer taking the production of the looms in Ireland, and did not require it for aeroplane purposes, but as a result of the Government having to take the products of the looms up to early in 1919 civilian orders were not in the hands of the manufacturers. The outlook was very grave, with the result that large quantities of flax and yarn ready spun by the spinners were in hand, with no orders coming from those places which usually took the production of the linen looms of Ulster. At that time there was an understanding or binding agreement that the growers should get 25s. to 35s. per stone, according to gradings. By July and August things began to improve and the farmers had meetings and insisted that so far as they were concerned they did not feel themselves bound to any such bargain, although there does seem to have been some kind of understanding. As business improved they had other meetings in the autumn. Their flax was taken out of the fields and being scutched. They were getting ready to be in a position to sell the crop of 1919 and did not like the idea of having to sell it at a lower price than in the previous year. Consequently they held meetings with a view to getting some arrangements whereby they could obtain the old 1918 control price, or flax should be decontrolled.
I understand that at one of the quarterly meetings of the Farmers' Union held in October they had a visit from two representatives of the spinners who asked them to send a deputation to the spinners' meeting in order that they might discuss the question, which was a very difficult question for everyone concerned. The Flax Growers' Association, the Farmers' Union, sent over twelve men to meet the spinners. A good deal of discussion took place there, and I think that eventually some arrangement was come to that the growers should get the 1918 price for their products; that is to say, not the arrangement which was arrived at in the spring, of 25s. to 35s. per stone, but from 35s. to 45s. per stone, which meant an advance of 10s. per stone for the flax produced in the 1919 crop, over the prices fixed in the spring. That, at all events, was some kind of an understanding. I am told that the Farmers' Union are not satisfied that that was a bargain, as it has been called, and for the reason that they had no idea that their twelve representatives, who were simply proposed from their meeting at the moment and sent to the meeting of the spinners' association, were going to settle the affair. Moreover, they say that of these twelve farmers sent to the meeting, seven of them do not grow flax at all. I suppose it is up to them to say whether it was advisable for them to have sent other representatives. At the same time it is open to them to say that they did not realise that this so-called bargain was about to be made. At any rate, there was some kind of an understanding arrived at. The Government did not quite like the idea of this advance over the previous arrangement which had been made; but I understand they acceded to this new arrangement. That is how matters stood in October, 1919.
In the meantime the condition of trade was getting better so far as the spinners were concerned. At the time flax was sold by the growers in Ireland at 35s. a stone, the unit of a certain quality of yarn was being sold by the spinners at 18s. 10½d. per bundle, which is the unit for sale; but as the months passed by this was increased to 78s. per bundle of the same quality and the same unit. Naturally the farmers did not like this. They said, "By control we are compelled to sell our flax at £300 per ton while the spinners, who are not controlled, are selling their spun
yarn at a basis of £1,000 per ton." When a farmer gets that idea into his head it is only natural that he should think that he should get some share of the very great profit, and that is exactly why we have this disturbance in Ireland at the present moment amongst the flax growers. It is a very disturbing element. Although we may reasonably enough say that the farmers understood all along that there was some kind of a bargain that they should get from 35s. to 45s. a stone for their flax, yet they argue that the English flax growers are getting between £500 and £600 a ton, the continental flax growers £1,300 a ton, and that the spinners have increased the sale price of their particular article from 18s. 10½d. per bundle to 78s. per bundle, and that they are entirely out of it, and naturally want more. I do not blame them. How is it to be arranged. I have been present at many debates in this House, when many objections have been made to Government proposals, but the trouble always has been that those who object have very rarely given the Government an opportunity of listening to their suggestions as to how the difficulties are to be overcome. Some way ought to be found out of the present position. On the one hand we have the Government control of flax, on the other hand we have the spinners, on the other hand we have the Irish Flax Growers' Association, and I suppose we have also the local flax committee who dispose of the flax to the Government. We all understand that the Government are making nothing out of the arrangement. I think I ought also to state that when those arrangements were made in the spring of 1919 by the spinners, the spinners undertook to take any risk that was going. Now we have these three parties, the Government, the flax-growers, and the spinners. According to a question which was answered to-day, upwards of 8,000 tons have already been gold by the flax-growers to the Government or to the spinners on the basis of 35s. to 45s. per stone. The argument of the Government is that it would be unfair to those who have sold their crops at 35s. or 45s. per stone to decontrol the price of flax now, thus giving the other farmers who have held their flax the opportunity of getting perhaps double the price. I agree that to some extent this proposal of the Government is a very reasonable one, but we in Ulster are in the position that
something must be done. We do not want the whole trade in Ulster to be held up simply because the farmers have passed resolutions that they will not take their flax out of their barns or wherever else it may be stored until flax is decontrolled. That is the position that we are in. We must not forget that even the spinners, after all, have to sell their production months ahead. I know what their custom is. It is to sell their yarn ahead on the basis of the flax prices of the day. It is just possible that large orders may have been taken by the spinners at the rate of 35s. or 45s. per stone, believing that the price of flax will still be controlled.
The farmers say to this that they absolutely refuse to hand over their crop at £300 a ton when other people are getting so much more, in some cases double that amount. I think that some arrangement must be arrived at, and I suggest that the Flax Control Board in London appoint a small committee or deputation, and that the spinners appoint a small committee, and that the Irish flax-growers appoint a small committee, and that they meet either here or in Belfast, and that the President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland shall be the Chairman of that Committee, and that the Government take immediate steps to bring that Committee together in order to find some way of out this difficulty, which must be solved. We must have an immediate settlement of this trouble. What is our position to-day? Here we are in the spring of another year. The farmers are naturally saying to themselves, "What is going to happen this year?" Well, I am glad to notice—and I think everyone seems to agree that it is a proper thing to do—that there will be no control for the flax crop of 1920, and that, all this trouble will thus have been got rid of. So far as the management is concerned, I do not think we need worry about the 1920 crop. As I have said, it is to be decontrolled, and it will be open to the Irish farmers to get whatever price they can. But in the meantime there is this trouble about the 1919 crop. I am sure some way can be found to get out of it. It may be that this Committee will try to solve the difficulty by giving some more to the farmers who have already sold their flax. I beg to suggest to the Government that they should appoint representatives of each of these three bodies and try and
find a way out of the difficulty. But there is one thing I would like to insist upon, which is largely responsible for the trouble we are having now, and that is the question of grading. That seems to me to be the root of the whole matter. The farmer brings his flax into the market. The graders are there, and they say that his flax is to be of one quality—1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. One farmer may say: "My flax is as good as the other man's, yet I am only getting 35s., and he is getting 40s." He cannot see the difference, and naturally that causes a great deal of discontent. I do hope that instructions may be given to the graders to do better than they have been doing in connection with this grading of flax. It would go a very long way to settle the difficulties if instead of having the lowest grade of 35s., the price were raised. I understand a large quantity of the flax crop is graded as low as grades 4 and 5. In answer to a question which was put to him to-day my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgeman) said that the total amount of the 1919 Irish flax crop which had been purchased was 7,963 tons. Only 157 tons had been graded as No. 1 Grade; 550 tons as No. 2; 1,532 tons as No. 3; 2,507 tons as No. 4; 2,709 tons as No. 5, and so on. I think you will find the root of the whole difficulty in that grading, and if the Government will just put up that grading a little—not very much—in order to satisfy the bulk of the farmers, you will largely get rid of this difficulty. I therefore throw out the suggestion to the Government, and I hope this trouble will be brought to an end.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It seems to me to be an object of special pleading in order to get some extra profits for the profiteers. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken said that in Ireland they were getting £300 per ton for the flax, and that in England they were getting £600 per ton. Foreign countries were getting something over £1,000 per ton. He did not complain that the farmers in Ireland were not getting sufficient profits. He simply complained because the farmers in England were getting £300 per ton more than the farmers in Ireland. He went on to say that probably if the Government would decontrol flax, the farmers in Ireland would go to the Irish markets and charge
exactly the same price as the English farmers—namely, £600 per ton. One cannot look at the newspapers day by day without seeing that the attention of the Government is being continually called to the profiteering and the high prices which are going on in the country to-day in the early stages of last Session questions were continually put down on the Paper asking when the Government were going to carry out a system of decontrol, when they were going to do away with obsolete Departments, and when they were really going to exercise control over the expenditure of the country. What has been our experience in the coal trade, in the cotton trade, in the steel trade, and in the tinplate trade? Where there has been decontrol, and where the demand has been greater than the supply, we have had inflated prices. Prices have been charged for the commodities in these trades today which have never been known before in the history of this country. The consumers have had to pay. That has been the experience of other Members of this House as well as myself. Every day I get scores of letters from different parts of the country, especially from my own constituents, asking what the Members of the House of Commons are doing in order to keep down these prices. I get these letters continually, day after day. Take all the necessities of life to-day; you have the Report about the cotton, about the wool, and about other industries. The flax-growers would do exactly the same as has been done in these industries. They would send up their prices. This would not benefit the spinners in any way, and what I suggest is that the flax should be controlled in England and on the Continent, as well as in Ireland, and the prices should thus be brought down to the level of what the Irish farmers are getting. I do not want to do any injustice to the farmers in Ireland, but I do want to do justice to the consumers in this country who have to pay for it. In South Wales to-day there are over 100,000 people idle because they have asked for an advance in wages—which has been refused them—owing to the high prices paid for steel and tin-plate. I would ask the Government to consider what time of the year is approaching. The hot weather is coming on. The time is coming when people get discontented, when they feel out of sorts, and that is the very time when we are
going to have unrest in the country. I hope the Government will put their foot down. Control is bad, but decontrol is a far worse evil, and I would rather see the Government controlling the industry, even if the employers have only a bare profit. While the supply is less than the demand, as it is to-day, the employers will send the prices up and ask any price that they can possibly obtain. That is always the case, and I do feel that this is the time at which the Government should really put their foot down. You have the members of the community all against you, the consumers all against you, and unless something is going to be done, you are going to have serious strikes and unrest all over the country. Therefore, I hope that the Government will control flax in England and on the Continent. During the period of the War the employers were given their chance. We now have commercialism run mad in the country to-day. The employers have taken their chance, and the Government should now take control and do something for the consumers.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I do not know that I can add very much to what I said about the flax position last week. The point is this. The Government bought the 1919 crop at a guaranteed price and sold it again to the spinners in order to get the mills going at a time when there was a considerable shortage of labour. It is now suggested that, when some part or some fraction of the farmers have sold their flax at a price agreed upon by the Government, we should allow the other farmers to get a much higher price than the one agreed to. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Lieut.-Colonel Allen) gave a perfectly correct and very fair history of the negotiations that have taken place. I thought, however, that he somewhat minimised what we regarded as a bargain. I understand that the position of the Irish farmer is that at the time it was made they thought it was a good price, they were satisfied that it might be considered as a bargain. But when they saw the price going up, it began to be a loose understanding, and now it appears to be no sort of understanding at all. I cannot admit that that is at all a fair description of the position. If it was not a bargain, why should they have asked for an additional rise of 10s., and when we agreed to it, why did they try to get out
of an undertaking they made, in order to get something better? I cannot agree that it was not a strictly honourable undertaking that ought to be strictly and honourably kept.
But I do see that there is some sense of grievance perhaps in feeling that the spinners may be making much larger profits than they or anybody else expected they would make when the bargain was originally made, and there may be some fallibility in the grading of the material or the prices fixed. I have already asked those responsible for the grading to look into the matter. I do not suppose that I shall satisfy my hon. Friends in that unless everybody who is now graded as 5 or 6 is put up into grade I, but we are quite prepared to look into the question of grading, and if, as I understand, the suggestion of the hon. Member is that there should be a sort of voluntary meeting between the associations concerned, the spinners, the flax growers, and the officials of the Government, I have already been in communication with the Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture with a view to seeing whether some sort of voluntary agreement might not be possible, but then my hon. Friends will agree that it would not be fair to give an extra price to the farmers who have not yet sold if an extra price is not also given to those who have already sold.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: Cannot it be made retrospective?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If a voluntary agreement between the spinners and the farmers is come to, I will be inclined to agree to it unless they were not to give the same terms to those who have already sold their flax. I do not know whether that is possible, but it seems to me the only fair course. There is no intention to control the flax crop of 1920, but the House will see that we cannot do anything but adhere to this restriction, until some agreement is reached.

Sir R. COOPER: While we are dealing with flax, it is the principle involved which is giving the public throughout the country a great deal of concern at the present time. It is really the point that was put by the hon. Member (Mr. Griffiths) who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench. My hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgeman), in the early part of his
remarks, admitted that there might be some question of injustice. The point, as I understand it, is this. It is not that the Irish growers of flax are dissatisfied with the margin of profit which they are making under the agreement which has been referred to. It is that the spinners and those who supply the public generally, the users of the raw material, the middlemen and dealers, are making exorbitant profits out of the public. The Irish farmer who grows flax feels it a grievance that the material which he produces and sells in the market at a not unreasonable profit is taken advantage of by the profiteer, who is the flax spinner in this case, if the facts are as I understand them and as they are understood by the public generally. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgeman) is going to control one section of production, he must be logical-and control it right through, so that one section of the industry cannot take unfair advantage of the other. We should lose no opportunity in this House of making the Government understand that there must be an alteration in some of the industries which they are controlling, or that otherwise there is going to be very serious trouble in this country.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: This Regulation proposes to give special power to the Food Controller for the requisition of certain stores; but all the powers required are already given, so far as the Food Controller is, concerned, by—

Mr. SPEAKER: We are at present discussing the question of flax. The question of food control will come up later.

Mr. ADAMSON: In the reply from the Government Bench it is admitted that there may be some cause for dissatisfaction in the fact that the spinner was not under control, while the producer of flax was controlled. The consumers are paying for that fact. On the farm, those who are engaged in production are under control, and the hon. Member has given no indication as to whether the Government are prepared to put the spinner under control as well as the producer of flax. That is the sort of thing that is causing the cost of living to go up by leaps and bounds and is producing dissatisfaction everywhere. Before going to a division, I would like to know what is the intention of the Government. Does
the Government intend to put the spinner under control as well as the farmer?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise on this Amendment. This Amendment is to abolish control upon flax. It is not to impose control upon other people. That could not be done by this Amendment.

Captain W. BENN: May I submit that the powers of the Food Controller under 2B are to be continued, and also his power as to flax. Certain powers of the Food Controller outside his powers as to flax are to be continued, and it is on that that my hon. Friend (Major Mackenzie Wood) was addressing the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: It was on that that I stopped him. If he confined himself to flax now, I should be prepared to consider the question of discussing food control later, but the point which we are making now is that no amount of discussion upon this Amendment could possibly induce or should induce the Government to consider the question of imposing control upon other people. The proposal is to remove control now, and not to impose it upon others.

Mr. ADAMSON: The point I was making was to get the intentions of the Government. They admitted that there was room for dissatisfaction on the point which I raised, and I was anxious to see if they had any policy regarding the matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would ask the Government to elucidate the point. I understand that the flax grower is controlled and can only get so-much for his flax. I believe that it is about £200 a ton, while it is benig sold elsewhere for £600 a ton. It would be useful to know, as the Government buys from the Irish flax grower, at what price do they sell to the manufacturer, the spinner, or the middleman. What profit are the Government making on this transaction?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: None.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I be allowed respectfully to congratulate the Government on this departure from their usual procedure. In a great many other cases the Government have been making profit which people resent very much. In this matter of not
making profit the Government should set the example. As this question of flax has led to a long discussion, may I point out that last year we voted £5,000,000 subsidy in spite of protests from these Benches, to assist the grower of flax and also that the supply of flax has been curtailed, largely by the Government policy of deliberately cutting off the buyer in this country from his natural source of supply in Eastern Europe, and in the interests both of the grower in this country and the public who have to buy the finished article, it should be made clear that the cost of flax, and therefore of linen, is attributable to the policy of artificially cutting off this country from its natural source of supply of flax in Eastern Europe.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing whatever to do with the Question.

Amendment negatived.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move to leave out Regulation 2F to 2J.
I put down this Amendment for the purpose of raising the whole question of food control in this country. I am not pre pared to say that it is possible now to decontrol all food, or that the powers of the Food Controller should be entirely taken away from him. But I do say that it is now possible for the Food Controller to give up a large number of powers which he has been exercising for several years. We are entitled to ask the Government what powers they think they can dispense with now, and that we should have in the third column against this paragraph a specification of what exactly they think should be continued. If the House will look at the different Regulations referred to in this 2F and 2G, they will find an enormous number of powers, some of which have borne very hardly on the producer and the dealer. Take, for instance, the powers of compelling grocers and provision merchants all over the country to send in returns. The returns which the ordinary grocer has had to make in reference to food during the last few years have driven some of them almost to the asylum. I would like to have an assurance that the activities of the food merchant are to be curtailed somewhat in this direction. It is quite obvious from some of the announcements that we have had recently that the Government have devised a policy which is going far beyond their right, in which
they are taking power to continue these Regulations, and we ought now to have from the Government information of what they do intend.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
5.0 P.M.
I think that before we pass these Regulations or agree to continue them pretty well indefinitely, we should have a full statement from the Government as to their policy with regard to food. I am advised by those who have spent their lives in dealing with the distribution, buying and soiling of food, and are competent to judge, that control has a tendency not to decrease prices to the consumer, but to increase them, and that while they admit it may be impossible at the moment to de-control all articles of food, yet it is to the public advantage that control should cease at the earliest possible moment. With regard to the articles which he sold in his very large shop, my informant told me that 75 per cent. of those articles were controlled articles, and he said that whereas the cost of transit amounted in pre-War times to 5 per cent. of the value of the article sold, it now under the system of control amounted to 10 per cent. of the value of the article. He did not attribute that entirely to the rise in the cost of railway transit. He also told me something that I think must be interesting to the House. We have heard that the Food Controller has been buying, very largely, Danish and Dutch butter and bringing it to this country. He said that all that butter, after having been brought into this country, was collected at a central depot, and by some process of manufacturing—he did not like to say doctoring—by some process applied by the Government, the yield was increased. We should like to know from the Government what is the cost to the public of collecting all this butter and dealing with it in the way my correspondent suggests, if it be correct that it is dealt with in that way. He said it was a process that was in vogue sometime before the War, and enabled certain-traders dealing with butter to compete favourably with the ordinary retailer of butter who got it direct from the foreign producer.
I think we ought to have a great deal more information from the Government than we have now. What is their policy
with regard to bacon? I believe bacon was controlled, wholesale and retail. Then the Government took off the wholesale control and retained the retail control. The result was that the bacon sellers of the country came up to London in a great deputation, complaining bitterly that the foreigner, the American producer, was charging any price he liked, and that they were compelled to sell it retail at controlled prices. And the public did not get the bacon. That is what has happened in the case of a lot of the control we have had during the last few years. With control an article tends to disappear from the market. I need instance only the case of apples: they disappeared from the market directly the Government took over the control, and the price went up. We have had a couple of years of very strict Government control. It has been contended to-day that control prevents a rise in price. It has not been so in the last two years, and if control is continued it will not be so in the next two years. I would also like to know what is the Government policy with regard to milk and butter and cheese. I think control there, at least I am told so, has had the direct effect, first of all, of increasing the price of milk, then of cheese and then of butter. It stands to reason that it should do so. The milk seller complains that he is getting too little for his milk and that it pays him better to manufacture cheese and butter. Then the Government increases the price of milk. Next there is a shortage of butter and cheese, and sellers come and say, "We are short of cheese; you must increase the price." Then the Government increases the price of butter and cheese. And so on ad infinitum.
I think the Government ought to give us some information as to cost. What I want to know is, what is the difference in the cost between an article wholesale and that article when it reaches the public? I would ask also, what is the comparison between now and the pre-War practice? Take an article like bacon. It costs the Government now, how much, between the wholesale price c.i.f. English ports, and the time it reaches the consumer? How much did it cost pre-War, when the traders were competing one with the other and were managing the business of distribution efficiently?
The whole argument of the trade is this: that the policy of food distribution is one of the greatest intricacy, and that people can manage it efficiently only when they have served the whole of their lives in that trade, and that if you bring in a man to interfere with it, however clever he may be in other directions, he will make a hopeless mess of food distribution. Directly you have delay or difficulty in the distribution of food you have waste and you incur great loss. I hope the House will not agree to the continuance of these Regulations unless we have a complete statement from the Government setting forth the whole of the food policy which it is intended to pursue during the next year or two.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I would like to point out that we have on the Order Paper an Amendment to continue control for a period. We are in favour of continuing control, not because we have any love for D.O.H.A., but because we believe that if you release control you are going to make things worse than they are. Our contention is that articles from which control is removed immediately soar in price. Control is not by any means the ideal thing that it ought to be if the Food Controller had exercised the powers given to him, I am confident that prices would have been much lower than they are to-day. The Food Controller has power to enter premises and to examine the books of any manufacturer of food stuffs and to ascertain the actual cost of production. That has not been done to the extent to which it might have been done. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment seemed to desire all control to be swept away in order that they could get back to the old Manchester school of politics. The Manchester school of politics is dead in the world, and there can be no going back to it. The only thing we can do is to go forward with a more co-operative method of production instead of reverting to individualistic theories. I hold that the Amendment would play into the hands of big manufacturers of foodstuffs. It is not the little man of whom we have to be afraid, not the small grocer in some back street, but the big food combines, which are forcing the price up and selling goods to the small retailers at a price which prohibits them from making a living.

Mr. FRANCE: Is it they who put the price of butter up?

Mr. MACLEAN: You have only to go Into the shops and see. The sellers of butter in the small shops in working-class localities make a profit that is scarcely sufficient to cover the cost of paper and the weighing of the article. One of the arguments used to-day against the Government was that they had mixed something with the butter which made the butter go further and brought the Government larger profits. The hon. Member who mentioned that must be extremely innocent of the method of selling goods if he imagines that that has been the method of making-up articles only during the War period. All these things were mixed up not by the small seller but by the large manufacturer. You have only to look into the window of any multiple shop and see the way in which the employ½s behind the counters are making up the goods they have to sell, and making thorn up according to the instructions given by district inspectors. In the interests of the working people of this country it is necessary that control should be continued for a longer period. We, on these benches of the Labour party, hope not merely that it will be continued for the period suggested in my Amendment, but that that period will give the Government which is in power the opportunity of framing some measure whereby there may be a permanent Ministry of food control, so that there can be no longer in this country the gambling in the food of the people that went on in pre-War times.

The PARLAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I believe that I am correct in saying that this is the first occasion during the lifetime of the present Parliament that the policy of the Ministry of Food has come up for discussion on the floor of this House. I suppose I may take that as a tribute to the entire satisfaction which the conduct of the Ministry of Food has given during the first twelve months. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I cannot help thinking that it is a little unfortunate that the first occasion chosen for reviewing the policy of the Ministry of Food should be an occasion on which there is no Food Controller to deal with the matter. I must ask the indulgence of the House under those circumstances.
As regards the alterations of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment in favour of the removal as speedily as possible of all controls and restrictions upon the food supplies of the country, I should like to say in the first place that certainly it is the desire of the Government that as soon as it is convenient and safe we should get rid of all the restrictions which were imposed and necessary for the purposes of the war, and the total disappearance which will be one of the most welcome signs that peace is really established upon the earth. I would also say that it was unquestionably the policy of my right hon. Friend the late Food Controller, during the last year as rapidly as he could, consistent with safety, to remove control. I doubt if the House realises how consistently and persistently the Minister of Food strove to reduce and to remove the control upon foodstuffs which came under the administration of the Ministry of Food. I am bound to say that in the carrying out of that policy my right hon. Friend had several very severe disappointments. There was, as the House will remember, a strong agitation at one time for the removal of control upon oils and fats. It was laid to the charge of the Ministry at that time that we were retaining the control in order that we might not suffer a loss on our own stocks of oils and fats. Everybody remembers how, when oils and fats were decontrolled, the result was that instead of prices falling or remaining stationary there was a sudden and very alarming rise in the price of those commodities, and a rise which, I am sorry to say, still remains a burden on the consumers of this country. If I may refer to another instance, we decontrolled veal under the impression that that might be safely done. The consequence was that within a Very few days veal rose from 1s. 8d. per lb. to 4s. or 5s. per lb., and we received urgent representations from the Ministry of Agriculture as to the slaughter of immature calves taking place in consequence of the decontrol, and that that would result in a serious diminution of the milk supply in two or three years time. We had therefore hastily to reimpose the control.
I only quote those two illustrations as to what I ask the House to accept as the fact that the policy at the Ministry of Food during the past twelve months has been a policy dictated throughout by the desire to get rid of all wartime restrictions
and controls as soon as it might be safe and convenient. I am afraid that at the Ministry of Food we shared to some extent that optimism which was so current in trading circles at the commencement of last year and which turned out to be so fallacious. I am afraid, like everybody else, we under-estimated the time which must necessarily elapse before the injury done to agriculture, and indeed to all the instruments of production of all industries by the War, could be restored. It is now obvious to everybody that the economic ravages of the War cannot be restored in a few months of peace. What it has taken years to destroy will, whether we like it or not, take years to rebuild. If we look at the question of the policy of control I suggest one of the principal considerations which must be present to the mind of anyone who has to determine the general policy with regard to control is this question. Is there yet any prospect as regards the production of visible supplies balancing the world's demands? So far as Europe is concerned, I am sorry to say that is still very far from being the case. We all know that we have in Russia 180 millions of people in a condition which certainly militates against effective and efficient production. The same thing is more or less true unhappily of 120 millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe. So far as the food supplies of the Continent are concerned, they are at the present time in many countries lamentably below the level which is really necessary for the physiological needs of the populations. So far as this country is concerned, we are of course in a much more happy position, but we have difficulties of our own. We all know that one of the blessings which has come out of the War has been the unexpected hastening in that process, which I am glad to think was going on for a long time before the War, by which the standard of living and the wages of the labouring classes have been increased.
In the case of agriculture, we are in this country at the present time in a position of some difficulty and some uncertainty. We do not yet know when the world supplies and the world markets will balance as regards essential foodstuffs. As regards agriculture at home, we have yet to see the standard of prices finally adjusted and finally emerge out of the economic confusion of the present
period, and prices which will at the same time encourage British agriculture and enable British agriculture to pay the agricultural labourers the higher wages which must remain. There is another element of uncertainty with regard to the food position of the world. There is not only a higher standard of living demanded by the workers of this country and all other European countries, but there is a remarkable change taking place in the food demands of some of the Asiatic peoples. China and Japan have become competitors for the world's wheat, and at the present time there is unfortunately no prospect of the world's production of wheat being restored to the world's normal consumption demand. I think all the circumstances which I have indicated are sufficient to show that there are grave and weighty matters which the Government must consider in determining the future of food control in this country, and those matters are at the present time receiving the careful consideration of the Government. I think I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) as to the matter raised in his Amendment. I think I may without indiscretion say that I do not think there is any likelihood of the complete removal of food control, or of the disappearance of some Ministry charged with the duty of protecting the interests of the consumer of food for at least twelve months to come. But the question is one surrounded by difficulties. It is under the immediate consideration of the Cabinet, and I hope that the policy of the Government will be placed before the House more fully than it is possible, as the House will understand, for me to do at the present moment. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan, I am sure he will on consideration agree that an extension of the powers contained in this Bill would perhaps not be a very satisfactory way of dealing with so large and so important a matter.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The Parliamentary Secretary has given us an interesting speech on this very vital question, but a speech which leaves us really without any new information whatever. What did he tell us? He told us what we know, that the world production of food is not really showing a great advance of what the position was six or eight months ago, and that China and Japan are competing
severely for what was a market which was substantially our own. He has also told us that the millions of Central and Eastern Europe are clamouring for food which there is no adequate means of supplying. We all know that, but what we expect from a Minister of the Crown on an occasion of this kind is some definite information and some indication of a policy. It is very difficult, I daresay, to frame a policy, but it is their business to endeavour to produce it. It cannot be that the Department has not had full notice from the wholesale and retail traders, because one cannot take up a newspaper nowadays without finding that my hon. Friend who represents the Department, with all his courtesy and ability, has full opportunity for the exercise of those gifts in receiving some deputation or other. He must have full information of the case which the whole trade and the public are almost daily presenting to him, and he ought to have told us something much more definite. We want to know generally what is his idea of supplies in this country, and to what extent our imports are affecting prices. I cannot pretend to anything but the most general knowledge, but I understand that butter has gone down a little recently. At least, my wife intimated so to me the other day. I also learned that she had heard it was owing to a large importation of Danish consignments of that most desired article. Why cannot the Food Controller tell us something about that?

Mr. McCURDY: I am not the Food Controller.

Sir D. MACLEAN: No, but my hon. Friend represents the Department. The public are really extremely anxious on these points, and the constant soaring of prices is one of the most potent causes of social unrest which we are at present facing. Before this Debate is finished I suggest that he should speak again, with the permission of the Chair, and I am sure the House will be delighted to hear him again. Turning to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Mumber for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), we know why he wants to keep these things on. He wants to carry out the policy which he and his party frankly avow, and that is the socialisation of the whole retail distribution of everything. It is perfectly consistent, but that is not the position which
most of us take up, and a comparatively small number of people really in the country take that position up.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, that is my opinion, and I am entitled to express an opinion and am going to do it. The idea that the people of this country are satisfied with Government control over prices and redistribution, such as it is, is an entire fallacy, and they want to see something very much better than that before they are going to trust it further. We have the policy of my hon. Friend here, who says, "Not only do it for six months, but fix it at once till 1921 and go on with it as far as you can." Then we have the policy enunciated by my hon. Friend representing the Ministry." A very difficult position we are in," says he, "only we must make the best of it and release control when we can, but at the present time we do not see our way to do it." My point is that we are entitled to much more information than we have received, and it is no good saying a time will come, in two or three months, when Supply is before us, or when a Vote on Account is being taken. The real Parliamentary time is always now. One never knows how business may go, and the complaint I make, with all respect, is that my hon. Friend ought to have given us much more information than he did. The public demands it.

Captain ELLIOT: I wish to intervene for a moment to emphasise the demand of the Leader of the Opposition for some more information than that which the Deputy Food Controller has given us. It comes to this, apparently, that with the Cabinet the thing is either always subjudice or chose jugée, and there is no possible way of getting away from that. When they are discussing it they say, "Do not interfere, because we are thinking," and when they have settled it they say," It has cost us so much trouble that we cannot alter it now." I simply wish to deal for one moment with the position in the meat trade just now. The control of meat is surely one of the things that we can have a little information about. The arrangements between the Board of Trade and the Food Controller are so complicated that it is very difficult to understand the position, but what the public knows and what it resents is that there are a large number of steamers lying round our docks, full to the brim with carcases of meat, and
that this meat is not being disposed of to the people of this country. There are fifteen great steamers lying round our ports, some of them being discharged, most of them lying idle, piling up demurrage, £500 a ship, day in, day out, Sundays included, and the stores in the country are bulging with meat, and you cannot get another carcase into the stores all through the country. I do not know the precise figures for cold storage, but they certainly run into six figures. There are many scores of thousands of tons of meat in store to-day in our big refrigerating warehouses, and the people see this meat definitely going bad under their eyes. They want to get it eaten, and they are told that because of some obscure arrangement that the Food Controller has made with the farmers they cannot get at this meat, because, says he, if we sell this meat cheap it will break the price for the farmers, and if we do that, the Government stands to lose money.
The Deputy-Food Controller, putting his case, said, "Where you get a shortage of supply and a high demand, when you remove control the price will go up." Yes, but there is not a world shortage of meat. He talks about it taking a long time for the economic consequences of the War to be repaired, but they have been repaired in this matter of meat long ago, and the food stocks of the world in meat have gone up, they have not gone down. There are 24,000,000 head of horned beasts more in the world now than there were in 1914, and the exportable surplus has gone up from 700,000 tons in 1914 to 1,100,000 tons of meat now. It is no use talking about Central Europe clamouring for food. It can clamour till it is black in the face for frozen meat, but it cannot get it, because there is no wharf in Europe at which you can unload enough: there is not enough storage to take it in, and there is not enough refrigerated rolling stock to take it away from the storage or from the ship to Central Europe. It has got to come to this country and to be eaten in this country. There is a surplus of meat, and the people of this country are entitled to get the benefit of this world surplus of meat, and not to be held back from it by the artificial designs of the bureaucrats. The price of imported frozen meat has been broken to 9d. per lb., but that is not sufficient. They have a
great stock of rapidly deteriorating meat which they have got to eat, and the price could be broken to 6d. or below that. The enormous contracts which are bringing in meat from all over the world will come to an end very soon. The big contracts with Australasia and New Zealand come to an end, I think, on the 30th June this year, and this meat, which has been bought by the Government, and which costs 9d. to sell to the people just now, will be faced with the competition of meat coming in from New Zealand, and which can be sold at 6d. a lb. The Government has produced a vast corner in meat, and it has met with the inevitable Nemesis of all cornerers, that fresh supplies will come in and break the ring; and unless they see that now, and begin selling this meat, we shall be met with the same demand that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N Maclean) brought forward, that control should be continued, and continued again, and continued again, in case the Government drops something on this deal.
It is not good enough. What is going to be the position of the great meat producers of Australia and New Zealand if we cannot get this food eaten here? There are 10,000 tons of frozen meat a week being eaten here, and there are 15,000 tons a week coming into the country, with the result that all the stores are full and the meat is being stored in ships lying in our ports. Unless they bring down the price to a point which will enable people to eat this imported meat, you will get this congestion occurring, and then next year you will get the inevitable reaction, when the Australian and New Zealand producers who want to sell their stock find that because of the action of the Government here they cannot sell it, and it will produce a very serious political state of affairs between ourselves and our Colonies. It is not directly the business of the Food Controller, but we are entitled to claim that the Food Controller should give us his opinion of the policy of the Government in respect to the meat situation; but he did not give us a word on that point. He has got some responsibility for it, because he controls the food supplies. He can shuffle out of a certain amount of it, because, as he says, the Board of Trade controls the imported meat, but it is the Food Controller that the people of the country are looking to to give the policy of the Government
in regard to the control of food, and here is a single definite case, that of meat, where control is absolutely not bringing down the price but keeping it up, and demonstrably causing the utmost indignation. You cannot speak to anybody from the London Docks without them saying "What is this Government extravagance which is causing such loss in the shape of meat?" It is causing the loss of food by its deterioration, and it is causing the keeping up of high prices in the fact that it is keeping up the price beyond what the people are able to pay, and on this point I would ask the Food Controller or his representative to give some definite indication to the country as to what steps they mean to take to deal with this great glut of food which is being produced by the action of the Government.

Mr. SEDDON: I am sure that everyone who has followed this question will endorse what has been said by the last speaker. No matter what port that is a landing port for food one may visit or get information from, the same cry comes that owing to some stupid regulation of the Food Controller or other Departments this food is being wasted and the people of this country are being fleeced by high prices to some extent by the wastage of this food. I am not sure whether I can now call the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), the leader of the official Opposition, but I may congratulate him on the much more fighting attitude of his last speech than what I have discovered in his former speeches. Evidently Paisley has been a tonic. I am always of opinion that no Government is well without a good Opposition, wisely directed and ably led, and I hope the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman's Chief will also put a little more ginger into himself as well. I want to make an observation with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). He seemed to assume that the multiple shops of this country were merely a gang of swindlers, that their assistants were partners with the swindlers, and he based his opinion upon what he saw through the windows of a multiple shop. He said that you need only look through the windows of a multiple shop, and you will see these swindling multiple firms, the instructions of whose district inspectors are carried out behind the counter in the mixing of the food of the country
to enhance the profits. I can tell him from personal experience it is wholly untrue.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: And I can tell the hon. Member from personal experience it is true.

Mr. SEDDON: Then all I can say is the hon. Member is libelling half a million grocers' assistants in this country, and as an ex-grocer's shop assistant I deny the statement, and say they are just as honourable as any other body of men. There may be here and there some people who do it, and they may induce some assistants to do it, but it is simply a draft on the imagination, and it is not sense to think that a great firm will place themselves in the hands of their servants by making them contributory to a system of fraud on the public. I say on behalf of grocers' assistants that it is a grave charge to make that they willingly and continually ally themselves with the plunderers of this country. With regard to butter supplies, the hon. Member is only half-informed, because the control is still upon butter, and if he will make inquiry he will find that all imported butter, which is an enormous proportion of the butter consumed in this country, is controlled, and the price, I believe, is 2s. 8d. per lb. What is decontrolled butter? Here, again, I am amazed that he brought forward the argument he did. Surely he does not want forced labour in this country either for the working man or the farmer. As I understand the position; the question of home-made butter resolved itself into one of whether it paid to make the butter or not make the butter. There were scores and scores of farmers who were getting milk from their dairies for which they had no market, because of transit and distance. They originally made butter, but with the increased cost of farming for these people they had to have an increased price for butter, and therefore it is not a question of plundering but a question of the home farmer being given the opportunity of supplying an article instead of wasting it, and but for the higher price much milk for the production of the home-produced butter now on the market would have been wasted. I am glad we have the assurance and the authority of the representative of the Board of Agriculture on that point. After all, we are discussing serious problems, and it helps no cause, whether it is
socialisation of the means of production or not, to make unjust charges against any people, whether they are the producers or the distributors of commodities. I have a very serious complaint to make against the Department. It is their jumping-cat policy I object to. I want to call the attention of the Food Ministry to a matter, but I do not know who is at this moment representing the Department in the House.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): My hon. Friend (Mr. McCurdy) told me a few minutes ago that he had an appointment with his doctor which it was impossible to avoid, and which necessitated his leaving the House, and he asked me to apologise to the House. I have arranged as far as possible that other Members who may be called upon will be here. I am sure the House will always be ready to extend courtesy on these occasions.

Mr. SEDDON: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for his statement. I hope he will convey our remarks, because I want not merely to help the Department, but to solve this problem, which is a serious one so far as the country is concerned. I want to call attention to the question of tea. There has been a change in policy which has brought about utter confusion in the tea market, and what applies to tea applies to every other article controlled at the present time. The Department do not seem to know their own mind. They do not seem to have any vision. They do not seem to have an authority who can give them sufficient data to come to a conclusion and to take a long view. I am informed on every hand by the retailer, by the wholesaler, and everyone who is handling the food of this country, that they hardly ever know from one moment to another what is going to be the policy of the Food Department. Therefore, what is wanted is that the Department shall take the long view, that they shall take into their consultation and into their confidence the men who understand the delivery and manipulation—I do not mean manipulation in the sense in which it has been used—of the food of this country. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those who are responsible are keenly alive to the social dangers that arise from high profits. There may be
some who are deliberately profiteering, but there are hundreds of thousands of those who are engaged in the distribution of food in this country who are not profiteering. They are anxious to give to the Department all their valuable knowledge which has come from years of experience. What we are suffering from is the creation of a new bureaucracy in the distribution of food in this country, and it is that which is going to bring ruin to the Government if they allow it to go on. I appeal to the Department to utilise the accumulated knowledge of those in charge of the distribution of food in this country—the great co-operative movement, and the other people who have been responsible—and I can assure him that half his troubles will pass away, and we shall get at least a clear undtrstanding that no food is going to waste, and no man is profiteering, because the Government is keeping too keen an eye upon him.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think I ought to point out that this is not an occasion for the discussion of administrative methods of the Food Ministry. That will occur, I understand, when we reach the Vote on Account. The Question now before the House is whether or not the powers of the Ministry are to be extended under this Bill.

Sir D. MACLEAN: On that point of Order, with the deepest respect might I suggest to you that, inasmuch as the Executive are asking for further powers, the House is entitled to urge criticism as to the way in which the powers have already been exercised; also to suggest how they might be better exercised and address arguments to the point that they may or may not be in favour of these powers being further continued? That would, in my respectful submission, lead to a rather wider scope of the debate than at the moment I rather gathered you indicated from the Chair.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman knows well that we have different occasions for discussing administration on the one hand and for legislation on the other hand. If the discussion is limited to arguing that the Food Controller's powers ought to be terminated, for certain reasons, that of course would be all right, but it would not be proper for the Ministry to respond with details of their administration.

Mr. SEDDON: On the point of Order. Are we to understand that, so far as this Debate is concerned, no subsequent speaker can follow the example laid down by the representative of the Food Department? He himself widened the scope of the Debate of which I took advantage, and I believe others have done the same.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was not complaining of anything that has taken place, or I should have intervened earlier. I am only endeavouring to guide the House as to the proper scope of the discussion

Sir R. COOPER: I feel in some difficulty in knowing precisely what are the lines within which one may address the House on this Amendment, because the issue before the House is whether or not we should continue the powers of the Food Controller, or whether food control in this country should be abolished. I feel that the debate, so far as it has gone, is likely to have a very disastrous effect in the country, and I think an unhappy effect upon the Government, because, as my hon. Friend opposite has just said, this really, with housing, is one of the most live questions before every man and woman from one end of the country to the other. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller, in his opening remarks, observed that, since the last election, this is almost the first occasion when we have been able to discuss matters of food control, and it does seem to me that before hon. Members in this House can really form an intelligent opinion as to whether this Amendment is one that we ought to support, or whether we ought to support, the powers of the Food Controller, this House and the country are entitled to a much more explicit statement from the Government as to what the policy of food control is going to be. I complain most emphatically that it is treating this House inconsiderately that there is no-one responsible on behalf of the Government who could deal with the speech made by the late Leader of the Opposition, or really give us that broad intimation as to the policy of the Food Controller which we require in order to deal properly with this Amendment.
My own general opinion on this Amendment is that from the financial point of view we naturally ought to
abolish the Food Controller, and every other one of the new departments which the War necessarily brought about. But I must say that, as I understand the economic position, and especially the economic position of food, it seems to me to be a most disastrous thing for the Government to remove all powers and all Regulations which, at least, regulate the maximum prices at which the principal commodities in the country can and shall in the future be sold to the public, because so long as supplies are short, and we have reason to think that will be the case for two or three years at least, it is only human nature that, not only in this country but in every country which controls food supplies, they will take advantage of such conditions to charge high prices.
6.0 P.M.
From the point of view of the control of prices, I most ardently hope that the work of the Food Controller will be continued. The problems that face the Food Controller at the present time are necessarily very different to those he was faced with during the trying period of the War. We all realise the great intricacy and the very great difficulties which really do face the Food Controller. What I think the majority of the people of this country desire is that the Government, in their policy of Food Control in the future, should aim at eliminating to the utmost bureaucracy and officialdom. We want to see reduced to a minimum the enormous number of returns which many food distributors at the present time have to send in. We want to sec curtailed to a minimum the staff which, in the Food Departments, will have to be maintained in the future. For my part, I do hope that there will be announced, if not to-day, at any rate when we come to the Vote for the Department, the fact that the Government are taking special care to enlighten the House and the country generally as to what is going to be the policy to be adopted from now onwards.
There are one or two other observations to which I should like to refer. There is the question of mutton. It really seems hopeless to raise the matter, because there is nobody representing the Department who is in a position to deal with it. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend just to make note of two points. There was the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, in which he very
ably represented the position of the mutton supplies. The case really is infinitely worse than he represented to the House. We have this enormous glut of mutton. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture will be able to correct me if I am not stating the facts—not only have we got an enormous glut of mutton in this country, but the manner in which the sheep and mutton industry has been dealt with and controlled by the Government has had the effect of, at the present time, depleting the country, not only of its young stock, to which reference has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Food Controller—but that an enormous number of breeding ewes have been killed in this country in the past winter. At present many are still being killed because of the very high prices which the farmer can get for them. That is a most deplorable state of affairs, especially in view of the fact that we have got an abnormal quantity of mutton in cold storage here. I, therefore, hope that my hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture will give his most earnest attention to the serious question of the depletion of the sheep in this country, and the killing of the breeding ewes.
There is another difficulty which I think the public find it very hard to understand: that is the question of the control of wheat. The same point really occurs here that I raised a little while ago on an earlier Amendment in connection with flax. I do not believe the British farmer will object in the least to the price of wheat being controlled—we will say round about 100s. per quarter—if he knows that on the top of that there are only fair and moderate profits before the bread which is made from the wheat gets into the consumers' hands. What the farmer docs object to—and rightly—and so does everyone who is occupied with production in this matter, is that they should be controlled and limited in price far below the price paid for imported stuff, and that the difference does not even go to the Government to help the Exchequer, but to the pockets of another section of industry, either the distributor or another manufacturer, who uses the raw material, and that this latter manufacturer is really making an enormous profit of the controlled price on the farmer. That is one of the evils that attaches to a number of
articles at the present time, just as in the question of flax, which has been brought out so strongly this afternoon. I do hope that the Food Controller, when he is appointed, will take care that if he is going to control any particular section of industry he will not merely control the production of the article, or the distribution of it, but control that section of industry from top to bottom, and see that a fair and square game is played by everyone who is concerned in that particular industry.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Like other speakers, I hope this Debate will not close without some more information from the Government about their policy. Personally, I share the feeling of, I believe, a great majority of Members, that if the harassing system of food control can be brought to an end everybody will be enormously relieved. It may not be possible at the present moment—that seems evident. Still, we should like to know the reason why. For I am convinced that the complete removal of all these restrictions as regards agriculture and agricultural produce would mean that, while the producer would not in some cases gain, he would on the whole gain enormously. The effect of these things is an extraordinary harrassing and a constant blocking of the trade of the agriculturist. Consider what is involved in this!—these constant provisions and troublous and harassing restrictions before the farmer in every act of his trade, and through the whole course of his business, and the huge army of officials he has to see or who come to see him—and everybody knows the opinion of the agriculturist of Government officials!—the cost involved, the suspicion of corruption, the cost of furnishing returns, and so on. All these things, I am perfectly certain, have blocked the agricultural trade, and the general public are in consequence suffering from them.
Personally, if I am sure I am speaking for a great many of those interested in agriculture, I shall most heartily welcome the moment when the time comes completely to remove in every respect, either in relation to meat, wheat, or anything else, these restrictions which have done so much harm in the country. During the War, it is admitted, this could not be helped. But the time has now come, or it will come very soon, when a complete change is necessary. The point, however, I wished more particularly to raise was in
connection with another question. I refer to the announcement recently made as to the controlled price of wheat. The announcement made by the Board of Agriculture a few days ago has been very much misinterpreted in the Press. I saw a news item and a headline in a paper to the effect that the farmer was guaranteed 100s. per quarter. The heading said: "New guarantee for the Farmer, £5 per quarter for his Wheat," "Bread will cost more." As a matter of fact, one thing that that announcement does not do is to give a guarantee. By that statement the farmer is not guaranteed anything beyond what the Corn Production Act gives him, and that, I think, is 45s. at the present moment for wheat. He has no guarantee of any price whatever. All that the announcement does is to say that if and when the world price reaches 100s., then he shall have that and no more; that will not take effect until 1921. That is the agricultural maximum, and at this moment a good many farmers are considering whether they will sow their spring wheat. I admit most of it should be in, though it is a small portion of the wheat in the country. They are also considering whether to go in for more fallow land and have the wheat in the next year's crop, or as an alternative let their land go to grass, though it is going to be cropped with wheat in 1921, or possibly spring wheat this year. At this moment I say, when the farmer is faced with this decision the Board of Agriculture and the Government issue the announcement, which must have the effect of profoundly depressing the farmer and making him wonder what is the prospect.
We know that the attitude of the Government with regard to Russia requires a good deal of explanation. There have been a good many curious things done about which we do not understand. At any rate we must know that the object of our Russian policy must be, in view of the large food supplies which we hope will be released in that country. These are facts the farmer cannot get to the bottom of, and he is troubled with the uncertainty as to the price of wheat. He will require a guarantee. In announcing the maximum the Government should always, if they wanted to give confidence to the farmer, have also announced a guaranteed minimum price as well. That is one thing which will give the farmer confidence, and so secure the benefits of
increased wheatage in this country. As the House knows, there is a very considerable drop and shrinkage in the wheat acreage of the country. It is obvious, therefore, that we are faced with a very dangerous situation. Every effort should be made to encourage the production of wheat. I am not arguing for any form of profiteering. None of us urge that the farmer should get a preposterous price, but we do want to make sure that the agriculturist will get a price that will give him sufficient confidence in the future so that he will grow the articles we desire.

Mr. SPEAKER: These considerations do not seem to be relevant to the Amendment before the House. This deals with the continuance of the office, not the administration of the Food Controller. The hon. Gentleman ought not to go beyond that aspect, for this is not the opportunity to discuss the general question. What we are now discussing is whether or not the existence and duties of the Food Controller are to be continued till August 31st of this year.

Mr. LANE FOX: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for having allowed me so much latitude. I will not pursue that aspect further, but I hope that what I have said by way of argument against the continuance of these restrictions and of the office of Food Controller may have some effect. The action I have described scorns to me to be certainly very unwise, and I hope very much that we shall know something before the Debate closes as to what the Government policy is likely to be.

Mr. WIGNALL: I wish to say a word or two in support of this Amendment. I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that we are discussing and considering the question whether control shall continue in its present form, or in some modified form, or whether there shall be any system of control at all. We have to consider which is best for the community at large. At a conference of representatives of national bodies and the Consumers' Council, this matter of continuing food control was under consideration for some time. It was debated and considered from every aspect, and there was a unanimous decision that we should approach the Government with a view to urging upon them the importance and necessity of continuing control. A vicious circle has
been created. High prices still exist, and they are going up. If food control is taken away it seems to me that we shall be giving a free hand to the operations of those engaged in producing the food of the nation, and prices will rise beyond the present level. We feel that control will have some influence in preventing to some extent, at least, the rise in prices, in regard to which the outlook is very omnious.
We are in doubt as to the policy of the Government. We do not know any more than the man in the street the reason why the Food Controller has resigned, and why nobody else has been appointed in his place. We hear that the late Food Controller has recommended that control shall continue for the next three or five years, but whether that is correct or not I cannot say. We can only get our information from the newspapers when we ought to get the facts from the Government; consequently we have to beat about in the dark. If we were in possession of the information and facts relating to this matter, probably there would be no necessity for Amendments of this kind. It is because we realise that people are being exploited, and because we realise that the Food Controller ought to have power to prevent the exploiting of the people, that we ask for a continuance of control. With regard to what has just been said, we have the important facts staring us in the face that the poor people are the greatest sufferers by these high prices, and we want a power to prevent this. After all our consultations and discussions and after debating the matter fully and fairly, we have concluded that de-control would be detrimental to the nation. It is because of these facts that we appeal to the Government to accept our Amendment and let control continue until next year. By that time we hope things will have altered. We are asking by this Amendment for control to be continued so that we can safeguard the interests of the people in some measure.

Sir E. POLLOCK: No one will be surprised or will complain that an opportunity has been sought and taken upon this Amendment to discuss the question of food control in order to secure as much information as possible. We all share the feeling that there is no more important question
in the country at the present time which is more likely to cause and continue unrest than that of food prices. Had it been possible upon this Amendment I think it might have been useful if the House had been allowed an opportunity of having what I might call a full-dress debate on the question of food prices in order to elicit as much information as possible. It is in that spirit that I rise to say as much as I can in reply to what has been said. The question before us is whether or not we shall continue until the 31st August the powers of the food control which are enshrined in the present Regulations. The point is whether we shall omit all powers from the Food Controller.
When the matter was before the Committee there was a general concensus of opinion that the powers of the Food Controller ought to be retained. That was on the 3rd December, and that is some time ago. The Amendment was not pressed to a Division, and after a statement, which I made, the Amendment to leave these Regulations out was withdrawn, and they were continued by general acceptance. I think the upshot of the Debate this afternoon is upon the whole that it is necessary to continue the powers of the Food Controller, so that as far as possible prices may be controlled, and prevented from soaring. There is a general opinion that if you withdraw all these powers, prices will go from bad to worse, and that whereas now some sort of system prevails if we do away with control disorder and chaos would ensue. For these reasons we are asked to continue the Food Controller powers. My right hon. Friend, the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), complained that we had not given him information on this subect, but I think we gave him a considerable amount of information. He complained we had not announced a definite policy It has just been pointed out by Mr. SPEAKER, that it would be out of order to discuss the question of policy. The Leader of the House said on Thursday night, that the question of food prices would be discussed and that the Government would try to give an opportunity although they could not provide a particular day On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said:
As I said yesterday, we are convinced that a discussion would do nothing but good, and I think my right hon. Friend himself
suggested that it might take place on the Civil Service Estimates, and we hope that will be arranged.
May I remind hon. Members we can have a considerable Debate on the question of policy and matters of detail when the Estimates are before the House? I do not want to say any more on this point, but I want to show that I am not unmindful of the observations that have been made. I have taken note of certain points which have been raised, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend and sec that they are met as far as possible. I have no doubt it has been useful to register some of the points of outstanding importance on which greater information is desired. If I may be allowed to deal with one or two small details, I should like to say, in reference to the statement made about the large quantity of meat which recently arrived at the Port of London, that that is the basis on which the price of meat has now been reduced. That is a factor which has been overlooked, and it would not be true to say that the Government have allowed a large quantity of meat to go bad and have done nothing. That is a factor which has enabled the price to be reduced quite recently. In regard to these questions of control, it is no use exercising control at one point unless you secure it at another point. With reference to what has been said by the hon. Member of Barkston Ash (Major Lane-Fox), I may say that, with regard to home produce, the price has been de-controlled. Home-produced meat is to be de-controlled as from the 4th July. Pigs are de-controlled as from the 31st March.

Mr. J. JONES: Does that include guinea pigs?

Sir E. POLLOCK: The hon. Member for Barkston Ash has made a very ample statement himself in regard to, the misleading headlines in the newspapers which seem to indicate that the farmer was going to be given some great advantage, whereas the position is, if and when the world price reaches one hundred shillings a quarter, then for the 1921 crop the farmer would be allowed to receive the world price. Then he would be able to share the rise which would be enjoyed not only by the farmers of this country, but of a great many other countries. The hon. and gallant Member has quite correctly put the matter. He would get the world price if it was less than 100s.,
and therefore the farmer is being put in no privileged position at all. The matter is receiving consideration, and from the point of view of what his rights are I am authorised to say that the matter is under consideration as to whether it may not be necessary to introduce a Bill to secure his position, and give him some guarantee such as my hon. Friend has indicated is necessary. I venture to remind the House that now, by common consent, control of some nature is desired, and I hope-that the House will therefore deal with this amendment. At the same time, I trust and believe that the matter we have discussed will be reported to the authorities and adequately debated on the occasion which, as I have indicated, will occur at no very distant date.

Lieut.-Colonel SIR F. HALL: I unfortunately happened to be absent from the House when you, Mr. Speaker, stated the dimensions to which this debate might extend, and therefore if I should overstep the points I am sure yon will accept my apology. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. McCurdy), representing the Food Control, did not give the House very much information. I want to deal generally with food control as a whole, and I cannot help thinking the absence of information has been one reason why the discussion has been somewhat wide. I suppose we shall be allowed to discuss the reasons why we are not satisfied with the present control and what we think the Controller should have done to improve the control.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that would be in order. The point now under discussion is whether we shall continue the powers of the Food Control up to the 31st August. Questions of the administration of the Office clearly do not come within the scope of the discussion nor do suggestions for improvements. Those are questions for any day.

Sir F. HALL: I think I am right in saying that the Deputy Speaker did indicate that we should be justified in drawing the attention of the House to the reasons why we think it necessary there should be some alteration. I quite appreciate chat you, Sir, have given your ruling the other way. I am one of those who think that the sooner we can get rid of control altogether, the better it will be. I hold that the cost of the food of the people of this
country has been added to very considerably by the methods that have been adopted by the Food Controller. Take, for instance, the case of offals, which are sent from this country to foreign countries They could well have been utilised here, and surely instead of allowing them to be exported to Denmark in large quantities, as they have been, they should have been retained here for the benefit of the English farmer.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is discussing the system of administration, and the hon. Member is violating my ruling.

Sir F. HALL: This question has been discussed, with all due deference, by the Member of the Government representing the Food Control. It is very difficult to keep this discussion therefore within the ruling which you have laid down. My hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) stated that, as far as he was concerned, he had no desire to accuse the shopkeepers of this country of manipulating stocks and prices. That question was referred to by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), and it is extraordinary to hear two hon. Members representing the same Party making such widely different statements.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was following an hon. Member on the benches behind me, who had made an accusation against the Government and manufacturers jointly on manipulating stocks.

Sir F. HALL: I am only desirous of drawing the attention of the House to the great discrepancy between the two hon. Members who belong to the same party. The hon. Member for Govan made direct charges against the owners of multiple shops in this country, of causing inferior commodities to be handed out. My hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean took it upon himself to say that, as far as he was concerned, he did not join with his colleague in making that accusation. I am delighted to hear it. At all events, it does prove to the country that my hon. Friends have not yet made up their minds as to what they agree or disagree upon.

Mr. J. JONES: We agree to disagree with you.

Sir F. HALL: I do not expect you to agree with me, and I do not care whether
you do or not. I can quite understand there should be some divergence of opinion as to whether or not control should be discontinued. We have had a speech to-night from one hon. Member who made it perfectly clear that, as far as he is concerned, he would like the control continued indefinitely. Certainly, I suppose that is one of the points advocated by the Socialistic party. Personally I am bitterly opposed to control any longer than is absolutely necessary, and I will tell the House why. Cost has been added to. I suppose I would not be right, after the Ruling from the Chair, in going into that question, but I will take my opportunity when the Civil Service Estimates are under discussion, if I am fortunate in securing it But I would like to say something as to the holding up of the steamers of the country, which adds very materially to the cost of living for the people. I would also like to ask what the Government paid for the mutton delivered in this country on the 1st January this year and what they paid on the 1st March?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is anticipating the speech the hon. Member will make on a future occasion.

Sir F. HALL: I was hoping to have been permitted to ask that question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can always put a question down.

Sir F. HALL: Yes, and perhaps that is the better way, as one does not have to wait so long for an answer to a question as he does for his opportunity when seeking to take part in a Debate. I am surprised that the Government have indicated by their action that in their opinion the food control of this country is of such little importance that it has not been necessary to appoint a Controller in the place of the one recently resigned. I may tell the Government that the people of the country are looking to them to take the necessary steps to bring about a reduction in the cost of food. At present, unfortunately, the Government appoint to pay very little attention to this question; it is really difficult to get even slight and slender information on these questions. I warn the Government that the people do not hold the view on this question of control and its importance which the Government apparently do.

Mr. INSKIP: I am sorry the Government have made up their minds that it is necessary to continue this particular Defence of the Realm Regulation, and I am not sanguine that the Solicitor-General can be induced to take it upon himself to alter their decision, whatever may be said in the course of this Debate. Still, I venture to express the hope that food control will be given up. It ought to be given up, in my opinion, at the earliest possible moment. We have had some remarkable speeches from the Labour Benches opposite, where there is a good deal of expert opinion upon this question, and I should have thought that they would have been averse to continuing it, and certainly would not have favoured a prolongation of it. Food control must some day be given up, and I cannot yet understand the reason for selecting the 31st August for its expiry, unless it is because about a hundred other Regulations are to be continued only until then. The Government appear to me on this question to be very much in the position of an anxious parent with a large family which he is unable to manage. He deprecates the suggestion that any of the children shall have a right to resume control of their own movements. But on the 31st August the traders of the country will have, unless there is a further extension, to resume control of food stocks and supplies, and I should have thought that if the Government had made up its mind to allow that control to be resumed the traders would have been prepared to shoulder the task.
The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) showed a touching faith in the power of the Food Controller to prevent prices soaring. But after the experience of the last twelve months one would have thought he would have realised the inability of the Food Controller to keep down prices. Side by side with the continuance of food control prices have risen. Perhaps we may take one object lesson which we see to-day. The Solicitor-General has told us that milk products have been de-controlled. That is so, and the price of milk now shows a tendency to fall, and for this reason, that the makers of cheese, under the policy of food control, have been subsidised and have been able to pay a higher price for milk, thereby forcing prices up, whereas under de-control the price of milk is resuming its real market value. That is an object
lesson which comes very timeously in this Debate, and the Government might take it to heart and appreciate that the country has sooner or later to resume the management of its own affairs. The Solicitor-General referred to the unanimity which apparently existed in Committee upon this question, and expressed the opinion, which I was surprised to hear, that this House now is unanimous in thinking that food control has to continue. I do not know whether there is the unanimity which he thinks in the House, but the Committee was apparently soothed by the hon. Gentleman's statement that these powers are very necessary to enable the Food Controller to ascertain where the food is and to make an even distribution.
When there were very short supplies of food there was a good deal of force in the power to distribute such supplies as there were and see that everyone got an equality of the available stocks. But when there is any quantity of food, as in the case of milk, mutton and many other articles, the way to make prices rise is to give the Controller power to control the article. What is wanted is to get rid of the dams that prevent the flow of trade in the proper and regular channels, and it is only when you find the Food Controller blocking the supplies and alternately starving the people below the dam and flooding them out that you have people alternately getting too much food and too little. I am not a trader and I do not think anyone would accuse me of any solicitude on the part of people who are getting high prices, but sooner or later we shall have to make the transition back to a normal state of affairs. Why on earth should we not begin to-day instead of beginning on 31st August, in the middle of the holiday season? If the Solicitor-General or anyone else can explain why on 3lst August the state of things will be so happy and food so plentiful and the prospect of low prices so near that it will be possible to decontrol food, I am sure the House will be in a much more willing frame of mind to grant this extension than it is at present. Hon. Members are flooded with requests from people asking them to take some steps to prevent prices falling. As long as the control of food prices is in the hands of a gentleman whom we cannot get at and who uses his powers no doubt benevolently, but free from any real control by Parliament we are helpless, but if the power could be
put back into the hands of people who can be got at and whose actions can be watched by Members of Parliament there would be some likelihood of our being able to exercise a control which it is the function of Parliament to exercise and not of the Food Controller. On these grounds I hope the Solicitor-General, with the assistance which he has got on the Government Bench, will even in the absence of the Food Controller agree to abandon these powers.

Mr. J. JONES: The object of the Amendment of the Labour party is not to protect any section of the community against the possibilities of economic opportunity. We recognise that to-day there is a great shortage of food, not merely in England but in every other country in the civilised world, and whatever our individual economic theories may be we have to face the fact, and if there is no control over food supplies for a considerable period of time we are going to be at the mercy of those who have dominated and will continue to dominate the food supplies of the people in the various countries of Europe. There is nothing to prevent the mutton that we have in the stores in London from being sold. In the dock districts in the East End of London it is said that the cold storage warehouses are being hired and food supplies are being stored. As soon as ever we remove control from the food supplies there will be an enormous demand from all over Europe for the available food supplies, and at present they are storing in every place they can get hold of all the food supplies which are being sent into the country. The hon. Member (Mr. Inskip) talked about milk. Milk is a big home supply. Let us talk about other food supplies which the workers generally use. Most of it is imported. Who controls imported food? What about the people who dominate and control the meat supply of Great Britain? Are they going to remove their control? If we cannot have Government control we are going to have private control. We are going to have the control of combines and syndicates, and although we do not like food control expressed through a Government Department we will choose the less of two evils, and the less evil is that Parliament should have some control, and therefore we ask that instead of the food supply being under the control
of private speculators shall be under the control of a public authority, and Parliament shall have something to say as to whether it shall continue or not. So far as our own home supplies are concerned we know what is happening. The average workman cannot afford to buy a bit of English home-killed meat. He has only got the smell of it. We are told something about the 9d. mutton we are going to get. That mutton will never reach the home of the ordinary workman unless it is in an advanced state of decomposition. It will be crying to Heaven for the 9d. Therefore we want to continue food control until such time as we are able to organise the public control of the food supply in an adequate way. Therefore we are moving for the continuation of public control until we have an adequate supply of food and until international relationships are properly fixed. When Peace is declared properly the whole world will be crying out for the available food supply, and then we shall have prices even higher than they are now. We Trade Unionists can defend ourselves in a fight for better wages to meet increased prices, but what about those who are not in as strong a position as we are? How are they going to fare? As soon as ever control is removed, as soon as international competition is resumed, there will be an enormous demand in Europe for the available food supplies. We are not asking the Government to organise the food supply; we are simply asking on behalf of the nation that they shall retain control until normal conditions are resumed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I congratulate the hon. Member (Mr. Jones) on making a speech which really touched the root of the whole question. He was not parochial, as the hon. Member (Mr. Inskip) certainly was. The whole case for keeping on control is the international case. The question of high prices is not peculiar to this country, in fact we are comparatively rather well off, and the question of prices is not going to be solved at all until international action is taken by the Government, and if and when the Members of the Government are lynched by an infuriated populace the reason will be, not because they have not done their best to keep down prices in this country, but because they have made no attempt to co-operate
with other countries. These powers which the Food Controller has got were pain fully gathered together during the War. There are many administrative weak nesses in them and there are many unnecessary curtailments of personal liberty, but nevertheless, there is in these powers just what is needed to control the supplies of articles of food in bulk from abroad. It is possible with these powers of food control to go into the world market and buy up the whole supply of meat from a Continent or a sub-continent. It is possible to buy the whole of the meat supplies of South America for this country or for a group of countries. Having done that, it is possible to control the price to the consumer, or at any rate to the retailers. Until that is done on a world scale we are not going to get prices down, and when the Government wakes up to that fact and begins to take some action, we may begin to see prices reduced. I hope no one will say this is only a matter for this country, it is not only it matter for this country, but each democracy must deal with its own Government, and I hope our democracy will deal with ours in the meantime. It is quite essential that these powers must be kept on, vexatious as they may be in certain details. Without them we shall have to start to build up once more when at last the problem is tackled. The idea of doing away with these powers of the Food Controller at this moment is sheer madness. I am astonished at the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. Hall) suggesting such a thing. I really do not believe he understands what he is suggesting. You may control internal trade if you like, but if anyone suggests taking away the power to control the external trade of the country in con junction with our neighbours in the world he must be extraordinarily ill-informed or positively reckless. Anyone who has looked at the subject at all—

Sir F. HALL: Will agree with you.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: He need not agree with me, but he must see that the world situation is such that to throw away these powers built up during the War would be sheer madness Any Government that did it would deserve the fate that I hope it would receive at the hands of an infuriated populace.

7.0 P.M.

Major BARNES: We are discussing whether the powers of the Food Controller
should be continued for a certain period. It is not quite clear how far those powers extend. I would ask the Solicitor-General whether they are confined to operations within the boundaries of the United Kingdom or whether they extend to operations which take place abroad. A great deal of the food consumed in this country is bought abroad, and it will be useful to know whether the Food Controller is responsible for purchases which are made abroad. He received a good deal of criticism, and it is only fair to the late Food Controller, as well as to the new one when he is appointed, that we should know how far he is responsible. For example, take the question of the purchase of wheat. The late President of the Board of Trade addressed a criticism some time ago on that point. He said that purchases made abroad were made too late, and that £13,000,000 were expended which might have been saved. Is the Food Controller or the Board of Trade responsible for the purchases of wheat abroad? Is the Food Controller responsible for the freights that are paid on the transport of the food to this country? Within the last week or two increases in freight, for example on wheat, have been equal to 10s. a quarter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting beyond the limits of this Amendment.

Major BARNES: It is assumed that there is a necessity for continuing the powers of the Food Controller, not only in regard to food abroad, but food at home under this control; but it does seem a lather curious thing that Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act by which the Board of Agriculture may control the production of wheat at home are hot to be continued. That would seem to suggest that the food condition at home is not so serious as the Motion of the Government to extend these powers would lead us to believe.

Captain BENN: There is only one effective stage of this Bill during the life of this Session, and it was understood that we were to have the fullest discussion. Therefore I do not apologise for detaining the House. The difference between this Vote and the Estimates is this, that on the Estimates we can only discuss the way in which the money that is being
asked for is being spent, but on this Vote we can discuss whether or not the Department should exist at all. That is the essential difference, and that is a question for consideration apart altogether from whether the control is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. I do not think there is any material difference between those who moved this Amendment and some of the Members of the Labour party who have spoken in criticism of it. We all agree that in view of the dislocation at the present time in regard to the world's food, and its prices, some measure of Government control is required. Our complaint is that, instead of producing some definite, clear and far-seeing policy for dealing with these matters, the Government propose in this case, as in so many other eases, to go on simply with the scratch powers they accumulated during the War for dealing with emergencies. The Food Controller made the case for this Amendment He said that what it had taken four years to destroy would take many years to rebuild. That is something like the purpose of my hon. Friends in moving this Amendment. If it is going to take many years to put this thing right, the Government should produce a definite policy and say how it is to be done, and not ask us to go on from hand to mouth in the way we are doing, by asking us to agree to the heterogeneous schedule of this Bill.
This is a world-wide problem, and not merely a problem of the United Kingdom. That emphasises my point that it should have been considered by the Government, and that, now 13 or 14 months after the Armistice was signed, the Government should be prepared with some definite policy to put before the country. It affects very materially the question whether or not we should continue the control of, say, wheat. Our view on this is very materially affected by the Government's policy in regard to the blockade of Russian wheat supplies, and yet we cannot get a definite answer as to what is their policy in regard to food control and what they are actually doing in regard to the wheat supplies. By way of illustration of the difficulties in which we find ourselves in voting on this Amendment, I would draw attention to the Government's own proprosal for setting up new food supplies abroad. We find, much to our amazement, that instead of attempting to stimulate the growth of food supplies abroad by
sending out raw materials, the money that this House is going to be asked to Vote is to be used for supplying something which is totally different, namely, manufactured articles. We should have some clear and definite statement from the Government showing what course they propose to adopt. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) seemed to think that the powers of the Food Controller would come to an end at once if this Amendment were accepted. That is not so. The powers of the Food Controller will continue in force until such date as the War is declared to be at an end by Order in Council. So that even now, 14 months after the Armistice, the Government have yet time to produce a policy even if this Amendment were accepted.
Control in itself is a bad thing. It must add to the price of things. Someone has to pay for the offices, the staff and salaries of Ministers, and so on. Therefore, it is only stating a self-evident truth when one says that control does add to the price of the commodity. You cannot stimulate production unless you can assure the producer that he is going to have a free market, without interference, for disposing of his produce. To strengthen enterprise and vigorous useful production you must give to the producer the assurance that he is going to have a fair opportunity of disposing of his produce at a profit. The extraordinary thing is that the Food Controller under these powers has prosecuted people, not only for selling above the price, but selling below the price. What can possibly be the justification for that? If it is true that control is so highly desirable in the interests of the consumer, especially the poor consumer, there is no justification for prosecuting people for selling things below the price. That is a course which I cannot possibly understand. Our objection to the present food control is that it is a scratch machine. It gives the Food Controller power to prohibit people from producing. [HON. MEMBERS: ". No!"] Oh, yes. He has the power to prohibit people from growing or producing articles. There may have been reasons during the War for such prohibition, but there can be no justification for endowing the Minister afresh with this fantastic power. Some people are complaining because we put down our Amendment objecting to this type of machine. In order to illustrate
how extremely inapt it is, and how extremely objectionable in some ways, I would draw the attention of the House to Regulation 2 GG, which is one of the Regulations which are being prolonged. It says:
Any factory, workshop, or premises or plant to which this Regulation is so applied, shall by virtue of the Order pass into the possession of the Food Controller.
Therefore he can take over any factory if he pleases, and under Sub-section (4) of the same Regulation it is provided that—
It shall be lawful for the Food Controller (a) to require any work in any factory, workshop, or other premises, . . … to be done in accordance with his directions, given with the object of making the factory or workshop or other premises, or the plant or labour therein, as useful as possible for the manufacture, storage, production, or distribution of food.
I understand that the powers taken under that Sub-section override the Factory and Workshops Acts because this is an Act we are passing and not a Regulation. Therefore, it gives the Food Controller power to override the Factory and Workshops Acts. If that is so—and I would draw the attention of the Labour party to this point particularly, it only reinforces the argument made earlier that fourteen months after the termination of the War it is an extraordinary proposal for the Government to ask us, coming as they do to the House without any policy of their own, to continue for a further period powers of a most unsatisfactory kind which were only granted to them under the stress of hostilities.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Having heard this Debate, and having heard the statement from the Government on the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major BARNES: I beg to move to leave out Regulation 6A.
As far as I understand this Regulation, it is one under which the Home Office have the power of suspending the Factory Acts, under certain conditions which are set out on page 24 of the Manual of Emergency Legislation—Defence of the Realm Regulations. It lays down that the power of the Secretary of State, under Section 150 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, by Order, to the extent and during the period named by him, to exempt from that Act any factory or workshop belonging to the Crown, or any
factory or workshop in respect of work being done on behalf of the Crown, shall extend to any factory or workshop in which the Secretary of State is satisfied that, by reason of the loss of men from enlistment or transference to Government service, or of other circumstances arising out the present war, exemption is necessary to secure the carrying on of work, and that such exemption can be granted without detriment to the national interests. I think it will be generally admitted that nothing should be done to restrict production at a period like the present, and that as far as possible all regulations and restrictions which exist, and which tend to hamper production, should, if it is possible without detriment to the national interest, be modified or dispensed with. But it is a very serious matter indeed to apply a principle of that sort to the Factory Acts. When one remembers the period of continued contention which preceded the passing of those Acts, and what an important factor they are in preserving the life and safety of workmen and workwomen in this country, one feels that a very strong case indeed should be made out for any provision placing in the hands of any Department the power to exempt any factory or workshop from the operation of those Acts. We feel that no such case has been made out.
During the War the exigencies of the War were paramount, and almost every other consideration had to be put aside. The men in the field were exposed to hazard of life and limb, and it was perhaps not too much that men working at home should be exposed to something of the same hazard. But that time, happily, is past. The fighting is over, and men are returning to their employment, and there seems no reason why exemption from the Factory Acts should continue to apply. Unless such exemption is general it must operate for the benefit of those employers to whose workshops it is granted, and it seems undesirable that it should be within the power of any department to grant exemptions which should operate for the benefit of particular individuals. One knows that if these exemptions were left in the hands of Ministers no consideration of that kind would come in, but it is obvious that there must be many cases which could not possibly receive the personal attention of the Minister concerned, and one feels
that, whatever advantages might be gained in particular instances by the exemption they would be outweighted by the dangers I have indicated.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment. I would appeal to the Government, even at this late stage of the Bill, to withdraw this very objectionable Regulation. It is bad enough to know that the Government has a right to exempt its own workshops and its own factories from the very necessary laws and restrictions which are imposed upon private factories; but it is almost intolerable that a Government Department should have the right to say to a factory supplying them with goods: "We will exempt you under the powers which we have." This Regulation will give to a Government Department the right of taking out of the Factory Regulations any factory which happens to be, supplying the Government with goods. I appeal to the House, and especially to those Labour Members who, I think ought to be here to-night when this Regulation is under discussion, to make a vigorous protest on behalf of those whom they represent, in order to prevent this piece of retrogade legislation. It is left to us, who are supposed to be opposed to factory legislation—although that is very far from the truth, because not only do we all recognise that these Regulations are necessary, but we believe that they should be still more tightened up. What was the reason which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represented the War Office gave to us in Committee for the continuance of this Regulation? It was that if we ended it at the moment—that was in November, I think—at the very beginning of winter, we should throw a great many people out of employment. The winter is about over, and we are coming to the spring, so that argument cannot possibly hold water at this present time. It is, I think, time that this Regulation went altogether. The hon. Member also gave me an instance of the employment of women and young persons in factories engaged in the rubber trade, and I want to remind him that that was a very bad example of the expediency of employing women and young persons for long hours or during late hours. In the manufacture of rubber use is made of "solvent naphtha," which gives off a gas which I am told has an intoxicating effect upon the people employed
in that trade. If that is so, I would appeal to the Home Office to exempt any rubber factory from employing young people and women late at night in that industry. I quite admit that the Government has varied the Regulation since we were in Committee, and it now reads:
(a) employment of women and young persons in shifts (not being night shifts) averaging not more than eight hours.
I would like to know what that means. Do the Home Office really mean that they consider it desirable to employ a woman or a young person up to 10 o'clock at night? The only possibility of getting two eight-hour shifts in is to work from, 6 till 2, and then from 2 till 10. I think it is most undesirable that women and young persons should be employed after 6 or 7 o'clock at night. The Regulation continues:
(b) employment of women and young persons at special times in creameries and; cheese-making works.
That seems to me to be very wide, and I should like to hear during what hours and at what special times it is intended to employ these women and young persons. Is it possible to employ them in the early hours of the morning, say at 1, 2 or 3 o'clock, or what is proposed? Then the next paragraph reads:
(c) night employment of male young persons over 17 years of age in wire drawing.
I believe also that that is very objectionable. With regard to the next paragraph—
(d) minor adjustments of times of starting and stopping work and meal intervals,
we should also like Some explanation. I would press upon the House and the Government that it is their duty to conform to the Factory Regulations which they impose upon trade as a whole. They ought to be model employers, and I hope that, even at this late stage, they will see their way to withdraw this obnoxious Regulation. If not, I think they will stand condemned before the working classes of this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In Committee on this Bill we had a pretty full discussion of this matter, and I think that all the Members of the Committee who are now in the House will agree that the case made out by the Government for keeping on this Regulation was extremely
weak. That was last November, and now we are in March. We are asked to allow the Government, in the urgency of the present moment—the Empire tottering to its fall, the bands holding together the Empire smouldering, and all the rest of it—to permit women and young persons to be employed at certain hours and on certain work which would not be allowed under the Factory Acts passed by the old Tory party two or three generations ago. We are asked to do that until some time when the Government propose to let go those extraordinary powers which they have got. Since this Bill ran through the Committee we have had reports of the Meeting of the International Labour Bureau at Washington, at which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbels (Mr. Barnes) represented the Government with great ability. There, after long discussion and in face of fierce opposition from another part of the Government—Indian Representatives nominated by our Government—on the one hand, and, of course, the Japanese on the other, it was possible to make international regulations for better conditions of employment of women and young persons, and I think I am not far wrong in saying that night work of women and young children was excepted among those Regulations. Yet hero we are, in this honourable House, asked to pass this retrograde and reactionary legislation, making it legal to employ those women and young persons and to undo the moral effect of the work done at Washington last year. I do hope that, if the Government do not give way and we go to a Division, all Members of the Unionist party here will remember the Factory Acts passed by their political ancestors and will support us.

The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who oppose this Regulation, seem to ignore the position of the people who at present are enabled to work because of the existence of this Order. We have taken all the means in our power to ascertain the views of those people, and so far from complaining of the existence of the Order, they desire it to continue. The effect of accepting the Amendment would be to throw out of employment, roughly, some twenty thousand women and young people. It would also reduce the output, and it would throw out of employment a
very large number of men who are only enabled to work because of the semiskilled work done previously by these women and young persons. The Women's Parliamentary Committee that was set up by the Minister of Reconstruction state definitely in their report that the question of shift control of the kind rendered possible by this Order ought very seriously to be considered, and should not be scrapped in the way suggested. They gave us a reason for that that a system of two short day shifts would help to absorb considerable quantities of surplus woman labour, prevent them from being thrown on the labour market and diminish widespread unemployment. The shifts we provide for are from six to ten. That enables two shifts to be worked. Then it would sensibly increase production with the reduction of overhead charges which is a matter of considerable importance. Hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite agree that it would be undesirable to do anything that might lead to unemployment at the commencement of the winter, but they do not seem to have the same objection to doing it after the winter.

Colonel WILLIAMS: I did not base my opposition to that on the statement that it would be at the beginning of the winter.

Major BAIRD: Then I take it that hon. Gentlemen do not object to unemployment either at the beginning of the winter or now.

Colonel WILLIAMS: No, but I did not believe that the reason given was correct.

Major BAIRD: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not believe what is stated by responsible people, no argument can persuade him. We can only give the fact that this system of two shifts, which would not be legal or possible under the Factory Act, has been found to give in creased production and increased employment of labour. Women, in particular, I am told, like it. Under this system they work one week in the afternoon and the other week in the morning, and in one week they have the mornings for themselves and in the other week the afternoons.

Captain W. BENN: What factories are concerned?

Major BAIRD: Any factory where it is necessary or desirable. It is not confined to Government factories. The Government has nothing whatever to do with it. The theory that this is a method by which the Government can obtain easy and cheap labour is not borne out in the Act or in the Order as modified. Hon. and gallant Gentlemen fail to appreciate how far-reaching is the modification in the third column of the Schedule. These words were inserted in deference to a promise which I gave that we should state definitely the precise nature of the Orders we desire. At the present moment there are some two hundred Orders, affecting twenty thousand women and young persons. It would be very serious if you are going to throw out of employment that large Body of women—large numbers of men are dependent upon the semi-skilled work which they do—and also deliberately to reduce the output for no valid reason, because the reasons of hon. Members range from a rigid cast-iron adherence to an Act passed in 1901, which I am surprised to hear given as a reason by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to the theory that this is a device on the part of the Government to obtain labour cheaply.
This is merely an indication to the House to exercise common sense and allow us to continue a system which is affording opportunity of employment to these various categories, which are seen in the third column of the Schedule, and which in any event only carries it on to the 31st August. If we desire to embody these modifications of the Factory Act in our industrial system, we must come to the House and get its authority to do so. Meanwhile, I do not share with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the readiness with which he is prepared to confront serious unemployment. That is what factory inspectors, who are in a position to know what would happen, say would result. I am no more prepared now than I was before, and though hon. Gentlemen may not agree with that as a reason, I am sure that they share my determination to do everything in our power to prevent unemployment. The question of the employment of women in creameries and cheese-making works is again a matter of importance. The Factory Act does authorise the employment of women in creameries, but not apparently in cheese-making works, and the conditions in which the cheese and creamery industries
are carried on show that the rigid provisions of the Act of 1901 are no longer applicable to the present circumstances, owing to the many alterations that have been made. All we ask is to be allowed to continue to apply the system which experience of the Act has shown to be wise in these very important branches of industry. There again the question of employment and the question of the convenience and comfort of those employed and the question of production are all intimately concerned.
There is a third point as to the employment of male young persons over seventeen in certain factories. That again is a question of output. It is in accordance with the recommendations of the Reconstruction Committee, that boys over seventeen years of age now employed on night work should be allowed to continue night work until eighteen years of age, when they are to be free from restrictions under the Factory Act. Otherwise the boys would have to be discharged. Then there is the question of adjustment. In order to fit the convenience of the factory with different starting hours, where people are working on different work, we desire to obtain the power to vary the starting hours. Those are the reasons for asking the House to allow us to retain these powers.

Colonel WILLIAMS: You referred to the question of rubber factories.

Major BAIRD: Rubber was an example which I quoted upstairs in the Committee stage, and as regards fumes if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would come down with me some day to see a rubber factory, and look into the obligation imposed on our inspectors to see that the arrangements for carrying away fumes are in working order, I do not think that he will have any misgivings with regard to danger to health. Those are regulations which are very special which we enforce to the utmost of our power. I can only speak from a short experience of the Home-Office, but there has been no complaint with regard to that particular matter while I have been there. There are fumes in certain processes which have to be carried off, but the regulations are thoroughly enforced, and I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman need have any apprehension whatever that
danger will result. I trust that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press the matter.

Mr. BILLING: I confess that the whole position shows a little confusion as regards the Act which we are considering which amounts, I think, to Government by Orders in Council. The hon. Member who has just sat down approaches the position very much with the politeness and the exquisite sensibility of a Chinese executioner, who proceeds to tell you that it is his intention to chop off your head and then argues the reason why he should do it. The whole idea of these War Emergency Laws, as I always understood, was that because we were at war it was necessary to introduce bureaucratic legislation, so that the Government, having regard to the fact that our national existence was at stake, could at any moment act without the permission of the House of Commons. Ministers now use exactly the same arguments in asking the House cheerfully to go into the Lobby and vote away any rights it may have. Personally, if I had my way, and I am sure other Members would do the same, I would wish to have the opportunity of going into the Lobby and killing the whole thing, and getting back to Government by Parliament, instead of government by a bureaucratic council. I oppose the thing on principle in the first instance. If the Government think it absolutely essential to employ women and children, what are their reasons? Are we to understand that labour is so fully occupied to-day that there is no one seeking work; that everyone is so busy, in fact, that women and children must be employed to keep the commercial concerns going? It is not so to-day, although it was so during the War. The whole country is reeking with unemployment. Personally, I hope there will be found sufficient Members in the House to vote against the Government on this. The unfortunate thing is that the Government has such a substantial majority, and in moments of crisis such a solid majority in the Lobbies, that it is very difficult to beat them. But I hope hon. Members will vote against the Government in this matter on the principle that half our troubles to-day are due to the fact that we are governed, if. I may say so, by Downing Street inspired by Fleet Street.
What I want to see is the power of private Members restored in this House. The only way to accomplish that is to force the Government, whenever they want further to curtail the liberties of a subject, with all the consequent evils which that occasions, to come to the House and get the permission of Parliament to do it. So long as by Order in Council or by any War Emergency Act we give them the extreme freedom of doing just what they like, and setting themselves up, as they have done in the past and still do to-day, as very inefficient miniature Cromwells, so long will the private Member's power fail to be a power. I make this appeal to any Member who may be thinking whether it is advisable to beat the Government twice in a week. I can assure him that the Government is perfectly safe. I ask hon. Members not to destroy their own usefulness, not to destroy government by Parliament, to which this country owes so much, when an opportunity like this occurs of showing the Government that it cannot always rely on hon. Members' support when such support is opposed to reason and justice.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I think it is only fair to the Government to explain that while the names of certain Members of the Labour party are associated with this Amendment, those names were included very largely for the purpose of getting information. I endorse almost entirely all that was said from the Government Bench in defence of the Government policy in this connection. The Amendment which we are considering raises one of the legacies of the War, whereby a very large number of women and young persons were brought into industry. Some of us have had an opportunity, in other connections, of ascertaining the class of women and young people who are covered by the Regulations. There is not the slightest doubt that if this Amendment were carried the effect would be to turn out of employment, immediately or at no distant date, certainly 20,000 people. Two points require to be kept in mind. In the first place, the women and young people have gone into these industries quite voluntarily, and they are continuing in those industries on the same lines. In the second place, their interests in the industries have, in the main, been carefully protected by the trade unions to which they belong, and I think I am right in saying that no objection, or practically
no objection, has been lodged by any trade union. Let us look beyond the effect of the Amendment itself. I happen to know that on the labour of these 20,000 women and young people the employment of a very large number of men depends. I am not going to embark on any controversy as to the employment of men or women. It is my business to see that they enter industry on terms of equality, if they can. I know, however, that employment depends very much on the work of these women and young people, and that substitutes are not available for the work they are doing. It seems to have been assumed by those who support the Amendment that they are speaking in our interests and on our behalf. I suggest that that is not the case, for the effect of carrying this Amendment will inevitably be to aggravate unemployment, to penalise certain industry now struggling to exist, and to make our task very much harder than it need be at this hour.

Captain W. BENN: While I agree in substance with everything said by the last speaker, I do not think it removes the objection which we have to the appearance in the Bill of the words which the Amendment seeks to remove. In 1901, a very comprehensive Factory and Workshops Act was passed. It is really a code of legislation for factories and workshops. As was proper, the conditions under which people could be employed were reviewed by the House of Commons, and suitable Regulations and restrictions were laid down. Section 150 of that Act is mentioned in the Regulation 6A, which is continued, with certain modifications in lines 14 to 32, to which the Amendment refers. Let me read the essential words:
The power of the Secretary of State under Section 150 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, by Order, to the extent and during the period named by him, to exempt from that Act in case of any public emergency any factory belonging to the Crown, or in respect of which there is being done on behalf of the Crown work, shall extend to any factory in which the Secretary of State is satisfied that, by reason of the loss of men who have been enlisted or lost by transference to other services by reason of the War, exemption is necessary.
It was realised that certain power should be given to the Secretary of State in the case of workshops where the Crown had special work being done, and in the case of a public emergency he had the power
to waive the Regulations which the House of Commons had come to the conclusion were necessary in the interests of the workpeople themselves. This Section 6A enables that power to be exercised also in cases of public emergency. I would like the learned Solicitor-General, when he replies, to tell us whether the limitation in 6A, "by reason of the loss of men who have been enlisted or lost by transference to other services," is to continue to apply, or are we to understand that the general powers conferred by Section 150 are to be exercised without that limitation in respect of any factory which the Government may think it desirable to exercise it in respect of? It is a very material point, and might remove our objection to this part of the Schedule if we knew it would apply only where the factory could not be worked because men had gone to the War. I can hardly imagine that that limitation does apply, but if it does, of course it would mean that the exercise of this power would be extremely narrow. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office made an excellent case of its kind, but it was really a case not for this part of the Bill at all, but for a general relaxation of the Factory Acts. Probably exactly the same argument was urged in 1901. The hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, was a distinguished Member of this House in 1901, and he will remember the argument that all this legislation was destroying output and restricting the employment of people. Those who opposed the Bill in 1901 may have used the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. W. Graham), when he said that the working people voluntarily accepted it.

Sir F. BANBURY: Not quite consistent with the Government Bill to reduce the hours of employment.

8.0 P.M.

Captain BENN: I do not think there is any consistency in the Government's policy in this matter. I think sufficient answer is contained in the statement that it is the general argument against factory legislation. It is the argument with which we are familiar. There is also the argument that if you restrict output it is going to affect the export trade. Those may be perfectly proper arguments, but they are of a general nature and not really applicable to this particular section. They are general as to whether
factory legislation is desirable. What we are discussing is whether the Government should have this enormous extension of their powers by regulation. If it is a good thing to amend factory legislation, I am sure we have not any objection to a Bill for that purpose. We do think there is no case for carrying on for some months longer matters which require general remedies, if indeed they are wrong. It is an extremely unsatisfactory way. This objection applies to the whole of the Bill and particularly here. The Parliamentary Secretary said that these Regulations were necessary because of apprentices, but will all apprenticeships come to an end on August 31st? If they do not, that whole argument falls to the ground. I dare say it is desirable to relax restrictions in respect to apprentices, but that surely is an argument for a general change on the law and not for continuing these powers. Legislation relating to factories and workshops is a proper subject for debate and decision in the House, but what we object to is endowing the Minister with wide powers of this kind. The Act only contemplated the relaxation of these numerous restrictions in case of public emergency which cannot be said to exist to-day, or in the case of factories owned by the Crown or doing work for the Crown. Now we are asked, without any public emergency, to give power to' a Minister not only in respect of factories of the Crown but in respect of any factories. I understand that any employer can go to the Home Secretary, and, if he makes out a case, can have the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, scrapped as regards these various matters and without any agreement with the trade. If it were put in that that should occur only on agreement with the trade union it would make the matter very much less objectionable.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The comments of the hon. Member apply not only to this Regulation but to all the others, and he holds the sincere belief that the Bill is

9H
Power to control canals.
So far as relates to canals with respect to which existing orders have been issued, and as if the words "for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm" were omitted therefrom.

The matter is of considerable importance to all interested in canals.

not only bad on the whole, but in detail. He put one or two questions. Regulation 6A applies not only where the Secretary of State is satisfied there is no other alternative, but also "or of other circumstances arising out of the present War, exemption is necessary to secure the carrying on of work." The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) endorses this Regulation as useful for the purpose of carrying on work. Since this Bill was introduced we have limited, in the sense of the discussion in Committee, the extension very much, and it will be found in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of column 3.

Captain BENN: Do I understand that the proviso that there must be reason of loss of men will not apply to the limited use of this Regulation if we pass it?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I pointed out that Regulation 6A could be used in a remote contingency and in another way of a more general character, and in either ease the Secretary of State can act. In the second case the Secretary of State would have power to act more frequently than in the other. The Regulation in its limited extent applies only to works in respect of which the Inspector of Factories certifies after examination that the exemption is necessary in order to secure the carrying on of the work. It has been pointed out how very severe the scrutiny and insistence upon the Regulation is. We are asking that this power may be continued not for the purpose of factories of the Crown, where they have the power, but for other factories where it is desirable that the Regulation should be enforced and in order that they may be put on a level with the factories of the Crown, and so continue work which is extremely valuable at the present time.

Amendment negatived.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I beg to move, after "Regulation 9 GGG," to insert

Sir E. POLLOCK: I will accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment I select is that on the bottom of the page, to leave out "Regulation 18 A."

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On a point of Order, Sir. Do you not intend to take the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer), to insert a Regulation dealing with the sale of refreshments in theatres?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; I think that would be out of Order. The Controller already has power to make such provision if he pleases.

Captain W. BENN: I desire to move, to leave out "Regulation 18A."
This Regulation reads as follows:
Where a person without lawful authority or excuse, either within or without the United Kingdom, has been in communication with or has attempted to communicate with an enemy agent and is subsequently found within the United Kingdom, he shall be guilty of an offence against these Regulations, unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the person with whom he so communicated or attempted to communicate was an enemy agent. For the purposes of this Regulation, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision: (a) a person shall, unless he proves the contrary, be deemed to have been in communication with an enemy agent.
The first point that arises in connection with the continuation of this Regulation is that there are no enemy powers, and I submit therefore that the description of 18A in Column 2 of the Schedule, "Prohibition on Communications with Agents of Foreign Powers," is not a description of Regulation 18A at all. On a point of Order. Is it in order to introduce a Bill which is described in the Preamble as to continue certain emergency enactments a description of a Regulation with an extension of the scope of the said Regulation?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already answered that about a fortnight ago, but I shall be glad if I can to give the same answer. The answer is this, that what is continued is Regulation 18A. We all have 18A, or we can find it. Then the second column proposes to describe 18A in a particular way. That way may or may not be correct. If it is incorrect, the hon. and
gallant Member can move an amendment to leave out the word "foreign" and insert the word "enemy," or something of that sort; but the mere fact that this description of the Order is inserted in Column 2 does not affect the continuance of the Order itself. The Order 18A will continue, if the House assents, quite regardless of what the description of it is.

Captain BENN: I am extremely obliged to you, Sir, for repeating the ruling which I regret I did not hear on the earlier occasion, but I would like to know in that case whether the Solicitor-General will accept an amendment to leave out the word "foreign" and insert the word "enemy,' which seems to be a correct description of the Regulation.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I cannot quite indicate that I am ready to accept it, because it may be unnecessary, and I am not sure that we have not done it already, either in the Regulations or in another portion of the Bill, because it occurs with reference to one or two of the Regulations, and I am conscious of the fact that either an Amendment of a general nature has been moved or that we have got one to rely upon. I have got the point in mind, and at the proper stage I will see that the matter is properly corrected.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Is it competent for the Government to alter the Regulation after this Bill is passed by the Committee upstairs? I understand that this Regulation 18A has been altered so as to extend it. It did apply to enemy agents, but was altered to apply to foreign agents, and I would call attention to the fact that that alteration widens the scope of that Regulation so as to include a vast number of subjects of foreign Powers, such as the French, etc.

Mr. SPEAKER: If they are included in Regulation 18A, this would seem to be a correct description. If they are not included in 18A, the description would seem to be incorrect.

Colonel WILLIAMS: We were supplied with a manual by the Attorney-General in Committee which purported to be a correct version of the Regulation as discussed by the Committee, but, if the Solicitor-General will remember, the Attorney-General dealt with this matter in Committee, and I think he said that that Regulation had been altered.

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, awl there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Colonel NEWMAN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now'' and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
With the exception of, perhaps, a couple of Clauses, this Bill is parochial and in no sense Parliamentary. Clause 43 of the Bill asks us to give authority to the Company to acquire three chains of land in the parish of Pinchbeck, in the rural district of Spalding, Lincolnshire, and to say that that is not a matter for local authority, but for Parliament, is absurd and is certainly a strong argument for hon. Gentlemen who are in favour of devolution. That being the case, I want, first of all, to deal quite briefly with one or two Clauses which, to a certain extent, raise matters which are not parochial. I have been asked to oppose Clause 47 by the Association of Urban District Councils. This Clause, as I understand it, seems to be entirely without precedent. It enables the Company to purchase gas, water, or electricity from any local authority or company supplying gas, water, or electricity in any area through which the Great Northern system runs and convey such gas, water, or electricity along the railway and use the same at any portion of this railway or property, although the place is beyond the limits of supply of the undertakers from whom the Company purchased the gas, water, or electricity. It may be, of course, that the Company rely on the Clause in the model Bill of the House of Lords, which Clause enables gas undertakers to supply gas outside their limits. But, then, I do not think the Company quite observe this. So far as water goes, there is in this model Bill a somewhat similar indication. Then we will go to
electricity. The electricity authorities cannot supply energy in bulk outside their limits unless they get special powers. That is what is set out in this model Bill, and, of course, what the Great Northern Company wish to do in Clause 47 goes quite outside the scope of the model Bill.
It is a patent fact, and known to all, that a large number of urban district councils are at the moment supplying gas and water in their localities, and some of these urban district authorities, as I understand, are also supplying electricity throughout their own districts. It is perfectly obvious that this particular Clause, if it is allowed in this Bill, might deal a severe blow at the undertakings of these local authorities. After all, these local authorities have erected at considerable expense their gas, water and electricity undertakings, and "considerable expense" means at the expense and risk of the ratepayers, and if the company is allowed to take water, gas and electricity in bulk along its system to a far distant point, it might, of course, inflict grievous injury on some local authority through whose district this water, gas, or electricity in bulk might be carried. Then you have got to remember, if the company get this Clause 47, it will be a precedent for all other railway companies. Therefore, I do suggest to those right hon. and hon. Members who may be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill that it ought to be an instruction to the Committee to omit Clause 47. In that case, the Bill might pass more easily, and I might suggest to the company, as fair-minded people, that to put in this very important Clause at the end of this parochial Bill is not playing cricket. It was only the keen-sightedness of a member of the urban district council which detected this Clause a day or two ago.
I want also to oppose this Bill, because it leaves out something which, to my mind, and the minds of a good many people, ought to be in. I want a clause added which will confer a benefit which has been asked for many years past in a district, partly in Middlesex and partly in Hertfordshire, in which the Great Northern Railway Co. have a monopoly. Therefore, the inhabitants must come to this company to get whatever they want. This particular district—the new Brunswick Park district in Middlesex and Hertfordshire
—is one of those rapidly growing residential districts between New South-gate and Barnet. It is one of the great dormitories of London, people going away to business and coming back to rest. It is a district peculiar in that it is not touched by any omnibus service or any tramway service. It has not even got anything in the nature of a good class road to it. There is no road in the district which would support an omnibus, and it is not possible for the tramway authorities to put down a line of trams. Therefore, the district is absolutely dependent on the Great Northern Railway for its inhabitants to get to and from their work. There are in this particular district something like 500 houses at the present moment. As soon as the Government housing scheme gets going, the Friern Barnet Urban District Council have actually plans in hand to erect another 500 houses in that district.
The demand which Brunswick Park is making for a halt or station to be constructed for their benefit by the Great Northern Company is not a new demand. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) will remember that on another Bill I got a promise or an understanding from him that if the district did grow the company would favourably consider a demand or a request from Brunswick Park to have a halt or station erected. I say that even in these few years the locality has developed, and it will develop further, as I have indicated. Apart from the residential development, there is now a large factory which was established there as a war factory, and now has been set to purposes of peace. A large factory has been established, which will eventually cover 27 acres of land, and gives employment to some 500 hands, and, if the business prospers as the owners hope, they look forward in a short while to employ over 1,000 hands What is the net result? Here we have these 500 houses already erected, and 500 about to be erected, and this large factory, most of the people employed in which, of course, live outside the district and have to walk to New Southgate Station, a mile and a half each way. I may be told by the right hon. Baronet that this is really something they cannot do, that the configuration of the ground is such that it would be perfectly impossible to erect a halt or station, that
to erect it in a deep cutting would be dangerous to life, and access to it would be impossible. As a matter of fact, some 15 or 20 years ago there actually was a station in this very, place—a station for the dead, and not for the living. The Great Northern Cemetery is adjacent. At the time I refer to the company actually put up a halt or station—call it what you will—with a signal box, all complete and properly equipped in order to facilitate the burial of people brought from other parts of the county, or from London. I do not believe that this place was ever used, because these particular gentlemen who look after our last journey on earth—the undertakers—for some reason or another objected to this halt or station being used, apparently preferring to use the road to save expense to the relatives. At any rate, the station was not used and eventually it was pulled down by the company. But the signal box remains, and is still labelled with the word "Cemetery."
Therefore, if it was possible in 1900 to construct a station suitable for corpses to be taken out, surely in 1920, with a much larger population, not of the dead but of the living, the company might construct a station, not for the purpose of corpses, but for living men to step in and out of the train, and get on to the road outside. I put this demand forward for the second time. On the last occasion we were not successful. We hope this time for something better. It may be urged by the right hon. Baronet that there has been no public demand for this halt or station, that there has been no petition signed by thousands of people, and presented either to this House or to the Great Northern Railway Company. I admit that. I am entirely to blame for it. I objected to it just before the war because I thought the matter would go through merely on request. But the county council representative for that district, the urban district council of Friern Barnet, through their chairman, the Vicar of Whetstone, and other local people, have, in one way or another, approached the company and asked for this concession. Therefore, unless the company are prepared to give us this small thing, and so meet the wishes of a large portion of the constituents of the company, I shall have to carry forward this objection, and, if need be, go to a division.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to second the Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend and I have visited this site together. We know how absolutely essential it is for any development of this site that there should be proper railway facilities. You have there, within fifteen miles of London, a distance of over two miles on the railway without a station. Imagine the absurdity of that. Within so short a distance from London you have half an hour's walk in a journey that ought to be taken by train. The site it waiting for suburban development That development will advance the housing question—not only for the district, but for London—by making the place available for those in London, and so relieving the situation.

Mr. WATERSON: There are several Members in the House representing the Urban District Councils. These bodies are anxiously watching this Bill, and particularly Clause 47. If this Bill is carried in its present form it lays down an exceedingly novel proposition. As a matter of fact, I am informed there is no precedent that we can turn to for any enlightenment in that direction. The Bill brings out a very important feature, so far as the undertakers are concerned. The Urban District Councils have very limited powers, and if the company can call upon them or request then to supply gas or electricity in bulk, or the like, it may bring upon them a great responsibility which at the present time they are not in a position to contract.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is exactly what we do not want to do. That is why we brought this Bill in.

Mr. WATERSON: I hope, at any rate, the interpretation of the Bill is just what the hon. Baronet will wish me to believe. So far as I am concerned, the Bill gives me a different impression. If this Clause 47 were allowed to become law, it would certainly enable many companies and authorities to supply gas, electricity, or water, as may be demanded by the company, which the company can easily convey on their system into another district, which district has not the powers to do, and the company will be able at the same time to convey their own supply into a district belonging to another local authority, although at the same time large sums have been invested by this local authority on its own
undertaking for the purpose of fulfilling its own statutory obligations to supply its own customers. Will this Bill, if carried, make it impossible, for, say, the Piccadilly Tube, to be extended? I am told that the extension of that tube would have taken place some time ago had it not been for the continued obstruction of the Great Northern Railway Company.

Sir F. BANBURY: This Bill has nothing whatever to do with the Piccadilly Tube, and will not affect it one way or the other.

Mr. WATERSON: I thank the hon. Baronet for that admission, which everyone has been trying to get for some considerable time. It will certainly dispose of the rumour which has been so prevalent for some time that the Great Northern Railway Company are against the extension of that particular tube. I am glad of an opportunity to get that statement from a representative of the Company. Perhaps, on another matter, we may get some information from him. There is a train which loaves King's Cross early on a Sunday morning—6.30. I have seen as many as 40 or 50 passengers waiting to travel North to suburban stations, such as Barnet, and so on, and they have had to hang about till 8.30 because this particular train is not allowed to take ordinary passengers. I shall be glad if the right hon. Baronet can see his way clear to offer facilities on that train to ordinary passengers instead of these people having to wait about. I hope we shall be able to hear something about Clause 47 and its effect. It is significant that the right hon. Baronet has been extremely silent. Unless we hear from him something satisfactory I am afraid there will have to be some obstruction towards the passage of this Bill

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not rise before because I wanted to know what hon. Gentlemen had to say against the Bill. It was more courteous to listen before I attempted to reply. If I had got up earlier I should not have been able to reply to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. In regard to Clause 47, it permits the railway company to extend their pipes or cables for water and electricity outside the area of any given municipality or company which is supplying them with that electricity or water. The reason we put this Clause in
is that there are cases where it is not possible to obtain a supply through another authority, or where the other authority have pipes or cables only for a very considerable distance away. It might be that we desired to extend electricity at Doncaster or Leeds for about twenty yards outside the area, and yet we could not do it, and we might have to lay cables or pipes for two or three miles in consequence. I think Clause 47 is a fair proposal. It has to be considered in Committee, and the details of it have nothing to do with the Second Beading. In Committee the urban district county, or municipality, or any other public body concerned can employ counsel and bring forth their grievance, and if the Committee think it is wrong the Clause can be taken out of the Bill. This point, however, has nothing to do with the Second Heading, and it is impossible for the House to debate a Clause of that sort on the Second Reading.

Mr. J. JONES: Would the hon. Baronet be prepared to confer the same powers on municipalities as he is asking for the railway company?

Sir F. BANBURY: I have not power to confer such powers on anybody. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Newman) desires a station put up.

Colonel NEWMAN: A halt.

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, and the moment a halt is put up everybody would say it is inconvenient, and that the unfortunate stationmaster or porter has no protection from the weather, and they would say that the railway company has no sympathy for anybody, and were preventing these people earning an honest livelihood. If one of them caught a cold and had to be in bed for a week, it would be said that it was because we had not put a proper station there. This is a very old claim by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Eight miles from London on this particular line there are two stations; one is over six miles and the other over eight miles, and they are less than two miles apart. I ask is it reasonable on the main line to require a station to be placed between two other stations which are less than two miles apart, because there would then be three stations within three miles? The cost of a station at the present time is almost prohibitive. Before the War a
station used to cost about £16,000, and it is now estimated to cost at least £40,000, and there would be no return upon this money, and the only consequence would be a further charge, and the Government would have to provide an additional sum to make up the deficiency. The hon. and gallant Member said I made a promise, but I made no promise to put up a station at that particular place. I did not even promise that we would put up a station even if the locality had increased in number, but it has not.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Baronet throwing over his general manager?

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know anything about the general manager. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said I made this promise, and that statement is inaccurate. With regard to the statement as to the distance people have to walk, I would point out that, as far as my information goes, the only alteration that has taken place is that a factory has been set up in that district, but I do not know how many of their workpeople would use such a station. I have had a letter from a firm there, in which they say that the nearest station is a matter of fifteen minutes' walk, which is a little different from the statement that has been made that the nearest station is a very long way off. The Great Northern Railway Company are only too anxious to give proper facilities to all the people and all the inhabitants on their lines, but it would be impossible to put up a station there because the population does not justify it.

Colonel NEWMAN: Why was a station put there twenty years ago?

Sir F. BANBURY: I really cannot say, because I was not a director then. I presume it was to see if people would use it, and as nobody used it they took it away.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Baronet prepared to consider the advisability of adopting the suggestion of allowing passengers to travel by the 6.30 train on Sunday morning?

Sir F. BANBURY: That is a matter which has to do with the working of the railway. I shall be very pleased to consider that suggestion.

Mr. MYERS: It appears to me a very extraordinary thing that a private railway company can promote a Bill, and the Chairman of that company can use his place in Parliament for the purpose of assisting that measure through the House, more particularly when our attention has been drawn to the fact that one of the chief Clauses of this Bill contains provisions for which no precedent can be found. Clause 47, we understand, provides for the railway company purchasing the supply of gas, electricity, or water from a private company, and conveying it on to its own railway line or on its own premises into the area of another local authority who would be willing to provide the company with such water, gas, or electricity, and have made provision for it. That does seem to me to be an extraordinary thing even for a railway company to demand from this House. Every municipality in the country, if it desires to supply gas, electricity, or water outside its own area has to come to Parliament and get special powers to do so, often at tremendous expense and considerable trouble. When a private railway company incorporates in a Bill a provision of that sort it ought not to be conceded when municipalities cannot put it into operation, even though it gets the powerful backing of its Chairman in this House.

Major PRESCOTT: The hon. Member for Finchley has told us he was voicing the opinion of the Urban District Councils Association in opposing Clause 47. I rise to voice the position of the Metropolitan Water Board. I have the honour to represent the Middlesex County Council on that Board and they are very much concerned with the provisions of Clause 47 of this Bill. I do not propose to say anything with regard to the clauses in the Model Bill of the House of Lords which have been very adequately and effectively dealt with by the hon. Member for Finchley. But I desire to draw the attention of the House to the manner in which the Metropolitan Water Board will be affected. I understand that that Board are authorised to supply water in this district and their charges are defined and regulated by the Act of 1907. Under Section 16 of that Act the charges which the Board may make for the supply of water by measure of metre, vary between 11d. per thousand gallons when the quantity consumed does not exceed 50,000
gallons, and 6d. and one-eighth of a penny per gallon when it exceeds 5 million gallons. Now the railway company will be able to take the Water Board's water from their own premises in the Water Board's area and convey it to districts far removed from that area, and to take such a quantity as will enable them to have it at 6 and one-eighth of a penny per thousand gallons, and so defeat the limit contained in the section dealing with the aggregation of supply. The only point I wish to advance is that it is not a right thing to confer power in a Railway Company's Act to the injury of a great public authority like the Metropolitan Water Board. I shall have no alternative but to oppose the second reading of this Bill.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The main object of the Bill under discussion is the construction of a small railway 7 miles in length between Waltham and Colsterworth. There are other powers sought by the railway company for the widening and improvement of their system. The Bill has already received some consideration from the Ministry of Transport and with its main object the Ministry finds itself in sympathy. Clause 47, however, has received criticisms in this House which, I think, are useful because they focus attention on powers which I believe are quite novel in a Bill of this description. It will be the duty of the Ministry of Transport to make a report to the Committee of this House which may be entrusted with consideration of the details of the Bill, and in framing that Report we shall bear in mind what has been said by hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate, Clause 47, as I read it, provides that the undertakers having the right of supply of gas or water or electricity in the district, may supply it to the railway company outside that district. If it were so proposed it would be open to greater objection than has been stated. But, as I gather, the intention of the Clause, although I am not quite sure for it is not aptly worded, is not to extend the right to undertakers to supply outside their district, but what I take to be intended is that having obtained a supply within the district the railway company may use it outside the district. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) accepts that as the intention of the promoters of the Bill. That is a more limited extension of powers
than has appeared, I think, from the speeches which have been made. But even so, as I am advised, it is the first time that this principle has been embodied in a private Bill of this nature, and under these circumstances it follows that the Ministry of Transport must give to it the most close and careful consideration, and deal with it in the report which it will have to present to any Committee that considers the Bill. The present Motion before the House is to defeat the Bill altogether, and the grounds advanced by the hon. and gallant Member who moved it are twofold. The first is that he does not like Clause 47, and the second that he wants a station or halt somewhere in the district of London. The second point is irrelevant to a Second Reading Debate. The first ground is a matter of great

public importance and shall receive due attention. I trust that these points having been sufficiently ventilated, the House will see its way to give a Second Reading to the Bill which, in the opinion of the Minister of Transport, is calculated in its main object to improve the transport facilities of the country.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Mr. J. JONES: (seated and covered)
May I ask if people who are interested in the Bill financially are allowed to vote?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Any Member of the House can vote.

The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 39.

Division No. 23.]
AYES.
[8.58 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Forrest, Walter
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Morison, Thomas Brash


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gange, E. Stanley
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Neal, Arthur


Baird, John Lawrence
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Baldwin, Stanley
Gould, James C.
Newton, Major Harry Kottingham


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Particle)
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gregory, Holman
Parker, James


Barnett, Major R. W.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Perring, William George


Barrie, Hugh Thorn (Lon'derry, N.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Bigland, Alfred
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Ramsden, G. T.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Rankin, Captain James S.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Raper, A. Baldwin


Blane, T. A.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Berwick, Major G. O.
Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Remer, J. R.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Higham, Charles Frederick
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rodger, A. K.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hood, Joseph
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Carr, W. Theodore
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Stevens, Marshall


Casey, T. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Chadwick, R. Burton
Jephcott, A. R.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jellett, William Morgan
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'ter)


Clough, Robert
Jesson, C.
Taylor, J.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Johnson, L. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Johnstone, Joseph
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Tickler, Thomas George


Courthope, Major George L.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Waddington, R.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Waring, Major Walter


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lorden, John William
Whitla, Sir William


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lort-Williams, J.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Donald, Thompson
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Doyle, N. Grattan
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Eyres-Monsell. Commander B. M.
Maddocks, Henry
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Magnus, Sir Philip
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Mason, Robert



Foreman, Henry
Molson, Major John Elsdale
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Sir F. Banbury and Lieut.-Colonel Jackson.


NOES.


Adamson, Bt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.


Atkey, A. R.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenyon, Barnet
Tootill, Robert


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lawson, John J.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William
Wignall, James


Glanville, Harold James
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Goven)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
O'Grady, Captain James



Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayward, Major Evan
Prescott, Major W. H.
Major Newman and Mr. Waterson.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding on further consideration of the Bill, as amended, resumed.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The point at which the Debate was interrupted was that we had moved an Amendment against the continuance of Regulation 18A.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain W. Benn) was in process of moving the Amendment, if I recollect rightly. It has not actually been put before the House. Perhaps the hon. Member will now move.

Mr. GRAHAM: I beg to move to leave out Regulation 18A.
I may be wrong, but I think the precise position is that we were discussing the new form of Regulation 18A as embodied in the Amended Draft, and not the Draft which was under discussion in Committee. Upon that point the House is entitled to some explanation as to what is the precise position of these Regulations. As framed in the Schedule, the Regulation reads, "Prohibition of communication with agents of foreign Powers." As the Regulation stands in the Draft, which was discussed upstairs, it reads as applying to the agents of enemy Powers, and I understand the position to be that since the Draft was under Debate the Regulation has been altered to apply to agents of foreign Powers. With that assurance, and having cleared the way as to what exactly is involved in the new amended Regulation, I desire to offer one or two reasons why it should be opposed. There
are at least two features of this which must commend themselves to everyone. In the first place there is the commercial phase and in the second there is what I regard as much more important in this connection, and that is the political aspect. As we understand the amended Regulation, it would mean that communication with an agent of a foreign Power even in matters of commerce would be prohibited as the Regulation now stands, and a power like that, now that the war has passed, is altogether too drastic and is one to which we should not at this stage give our assent. I take it, therfore, that the idea of the Government is rather to try to prevent the communications of agents of foreign Powers in the matter of political propaganda, that is, to try to regulate or control either the supply of literature or the dissemination of views with which they may not be from time to time in agreement. I have not the slightest sympathy with any revolutionary or subversive propaganda, but if you want to defeat dangerous and nefarious doctrines, the best way to do so is to allow them publicity, to allow them scope, and not to drive them underground where we may have very great difficulty in dealing with them at all. In the present condition of international affairs and with a view to international peace and the removal of all difficulties and misunderstandings between nations, it is eminently desirable that we should know exactly what views are being promulgated in any country, no matter what those views may be. We may be absolutely opposed to them. We may consider them wrong, unjust, and dangerous-to society, but all that can be carefully considered by the people when they have access to them, and when they understand exactly what they mean. It is quite probable that a resolution of this kind in its political aspect would be used to prevent any communication with the representative of a foreign Power on points
which it might be very desirable indeed to have discussed on international or national lines. The Regulation, as framed, is altogether too wide and sweeping as applied to agents of foreign Powers; it is dangerous, and on these grounds I oppose it.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment. I submit that it is of extreme importance, because these are very dangerous powers indeed to leave in the hands of the Executive. During the War it was necessary to put into the hands of the Executive very drastic powers dealing with cases of espionage. It was necessary to take swift action in cases where it was found that there was an agent of a foreign Power collecting information as to our naval and military dispositions, and those powers were ungrudgingly given. It is now proposed that these powers should be continued in a time of peace. They may be used in two distinct ways. We wish to prevent people coming here and acting as naval and military spies of some Power with which we may be at war. We wish to prevent them coming here and collecting information about our armed forces, our dockyards, our aerodromes, and all the rest of it. What Power is going to do it? Is it suggested that the Germans are going to send over agents and try to find out our naval strength, the disposition of our fleet, and the means that we have of coping with the submarine? There is no German fleet, or such of it as there is lies at the bottom of the sea at Scapa Flow. The suggestion that the Germans might send over agents to find out information about our Army is absurd on the face of it. By the terms of the Peace Treaty the German Army is reduced to 100,000 men. Although we know that has not been carried out, the Minister for War has assured the House that the present Government of Germany is carrying out its obligations under the Peace Treaty as faithfully as it can, and that the German Army has been reduced and is not at present being organised as an offensive force. What other enemies have we? Austria? We are spoon-feeding Austria at the present time. She is bankrupt. Is it seriously suggested, after what has happened in the last five years, that any of our Allies are spending great sums of money—because this
business of espionage is a very expensive one—sending spies over here to find out our naval, military and air force secrets? If so, it is a very strange commentary upon the new world order, of which we have heard so much.
If, however, certain Powers are taking steps to find out our naval and military secrets, surely the law as it existed before the War is sufficient to deal with them, if not, then it is time that a Bill was brought in and placed on the Statute Book to deal with espionage. Before the War there were one or two spy trials. There was a naval warrant officer tried for bartering and trading in naval secrets with Germany. He was laid by the heels without difficulty, tried, and imprisoned. I do not see, therefore, that there is any particular case made out for dealing with that type of persons. If there be such a case, then the first Bill that the Government should have introduced instead of this War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill should have been one giving greater powers to the Executive to deal with spies. I have dealt with the first and legitimate use of these powers which we are asked to give to the Executive. May I now refer to what I call the illegitimate use of them, namely, the use of them for prosecuting poor men for having communications with nationals of another Power whose Government does not agree with the political ideas of the Government of this country? I use the words "poor men" deliberately. It is only poor men who are proceeded against in these cases. Persons like the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), the hon. and gallant Member for East Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel Malone), and myself are members of the governing classes. We are the official classes. The hon. and gallant Member for East Leyton and myself have served for many years in the naval and military forces of the Crown as commissioned officers. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme comes of a family which has sent its representative to Parliament generation after generation. We are not the people who are prosecuted under these extraordinary powers. It is the poor fellow, the poor shop steward, or the poor East End tailor, who perhaps represents some obscure Socialist society which is not doing any harm, never has done any harm, and never will do any harm, but is simply a society which enables disgruntled people to blow
off steam. It is people of that class who are prosecuted by the illegitimate use of these extraordinary powers which we are asked to give to the Executive.
If this is not aimed an, spies who are supposed to come over here to get our naval and military secrets, it is aimed at people who may have communications with what are loosely called Bolsheviks: Russian, German, Hungarian or American; people who are supposed to be people holding Bolshevik ideas. They are the people you are trying to persecute. They are the people you want to lay by the heels and to put out of sight without any trial or publicity or, if possible, without telling their relatives. That is what you have been doing, and that is what certain members of the Government want to go on doing. We have had the Minister for War spreading himself in a Sunday paper. We have had extreme articles in a very popular illustrated Sunday journal. One Sunday we had the Minister for War dealing with a sort of pogrom against the Jews. The next Sunday we had an impassioned article suggesting that all people with whom we do not agree politically should be labelled Bolsheviks and shipped off to some desert island. I suppose it is with sort of an idea of doing that that these powers are required. You want to find out who are the people who go to Strasburg to meet the French Socialists, who are holding a meeting and where probably the majority will be found to declare for the principles of the Third Internationale. The people who will go from this country will be the extreme left wing of the Labour movement. [HON. MEMBEBS: "The Member for Hull."] No, the hon. Member for Hull has not been invited. If I were in Alsace I would have a look at Strasburg and probably listen to some very interesting speeches, which I should be able to follow, as I hope hon. Members opposite will be able to do at the present time. The people who will go to Strasburg probably will be members of the British Socialist party, members of the Independent Labour party, and members of the Socialist Labour party.
Is it really the intention in this year 1920 to persecute citizens of this country because they advocate, quite constitutionally, quite legally, as they are entitled to do, a change in the form of Government in this country? Not many years ago it was almost an act of treachery to advocate
the right of Parliament to control the expenditure of public money. To-day it is suggested by certain extreme elements that the days of Parliament elected on a territorial basis are over. No one who takes the oath and his seat in this House will subscribe to that. There are persons—I do not know whether they are many or few, but I am rather inclined to think that they are in a considerable minority—who declare that the Parliamentary system as it has grown up in this country is out of date and they advocate setting up another form of representative assembly elected on a vocational basis. Agreement with that idea is the whole basis of belonging to the Third Internationale. Is it proposed to persecute persons who hold that point of view? If you are going to persecute poor men in this country who have been in communication with Frenchmen, Germans, Russians or other foreigners who suggest that the better system of representation for democracy would be by election on the vocational basis instead of a territorial basis, you will want these powers. You cannot deal with them under the common law, and you can only bring your proceedings under these regulations by Order in Council. You can bring this vague charge against them of having gone to Berne or elsewhere to an International Socialist congress, such as that attended by the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson). You can say that they have gone to Strasburg and attended this meeting of the French Socialist party, and under this Regulation you can lay these people by the heels and intern them or imprison them without trial. Is that the power that this House, representing the victorious people of this country, which has come through all the trials of the past five years, desires to give to the Executive? If so, it is a confession of the complete failure of democracy in this country.
If we cannot allow freedom of opinion; if we cannot allow advanced Socialists in this country to communicate and exchange ideas with advanced Socialists in other countries, America, Russia, Hungary, or anywhere else, we might as well capitulate altogether and not attempt to rule this country constitutionally as a democratic country. If you are going to crush opinion in this country in this way, let us give up the pretence of being a democratic nation. Let us give up the idea of
being a free country, let us drop it. I hope this Amendment will be accepted by the Government without a Division and without showing to the world how effete a Parliament under the coupon system can become. If the Government will not accept the Amendment we shall have to go to a Division, and we will show the world what we have done. We are either afraid of foreign spies coming here to discover our naval or military secrets, or else we are afraid of the advanced Socialist with his new ideas of making a better and happier earth. We are afraid of him, and we need these extraordinary powers to arrest and intern him lest he corrupts the whole of the people of this country. I appeal to the Government to drop what the Noble Lord, the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), calls the war mind. Let us get to the peace mind. Let us remember that we are a Constitutional country and that we have never suffered through allowing freedom of speech or freedom of action or freedom of the Press in this country. Our attempts since the Armistice to crush ideas have signally failed, and if we could not succeed before we cannot succeed now.

Mr. INSKIP: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member whether I understood him rightly to say that he and other members of the governing class had never been troubled with any inquiries on matters of this sort, and whether he will repeat on this or any other occasion that statement, with a deliberate recollection of the facts.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Certainly.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) for the way in which he moved this Amendment, and asked for an explanation which I shall be very glad to give. I do not wish in any way to criticise the manner in which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) so faithfully criticised what he called the legitimate use of these powers, and perhaps, if it is not impertinent, I may offer him a compliment and say that I think he has faithfully criticised what he called their illegitimate use. In fact, I thought that his speech became more expansive, and perhaps more eloquent, with regard to the
illegitimate than with regard to the legitimate use. He asked me to exercise the peace mind. May I tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am delighted to exercise, at any rate, a peaceful mind, because, although he was impassioned and stirred, I am sorry to say he did not either stir me or create any passion in me. I am, therefore, able to offer peaceful observations in answer to his expressions. He asked me earlier in the evening whether I would try and think internationally, and I am going to try and think internationally. With these preliminaries I come back to the Regulation.
The Regulation is one to which we attach importance, and the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, who, as he always does, has taken the trouble to inform himself exactly, pointed out that it is a Regulation which has been amended. It was amended, at the end of November, in the sense in which he rightly informed the House, that is to say, the term "enemy" has now been eliminated, and it now deals with foreign agents; and the Interpretation Clause, which is Clause (b) of the Regulation, which formerly ran in this way—
the expression 'enemy agent' includes any person who is, or has been, or is-reasonably suspected of being or having been, employed by the enemy,
and so on, now lays it down that the expression "foreign agent," which is used throughout the Regulation, includes any person who is, or has been, or is reasonably suspected of having been, employed by a foreign Power directly or indirectly, and so on; so that, as the hon. Member rightly says—

Captain W. BENN: The right hon. Gentleman was reading the sub-section. The sub-section goes on to say, who has been employed on any act "which if done within the United Kingdom would be a contravention of these Regulations." When the body of the Regulations has vanished, what Regulations will be referred to?

Sir E. POLLOCK: When my hon. and gallant Friend was interrupted in his speech by the Adjournment of the House, he was raising a point in which I thought there was some substance, but the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh has rightly informed the House that my hon. and gallant Friend was misinformed, and that the Regulation, as it was amended
in November, 1919, runs in the way I have stated. I was dealing with paragraph (b), but let me go back to the first part of the Regulation, which reads:
Where a person, without lawful authority or excuse, either within or without the United Kingdom, has been in communication with, or has attempted to communicate with, a foreign agent, and is subsequently found within the United Kingdom, he shall be guilty of an attempt against these Regulations unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the person with whom he so communicated or attempted to communicate was a foreign agent.
Then in Sub-section (a), the word "foreign" is to be read instead of "enemy," and in the definition Clause (b), which now stands, "the expression 'foreign agent' includes any person," and so on. I really think that my hon. and gallant Friend may take it from me that the point he raised when he commenced to move this Amendment does not really arise, because in fact it now applies to foreign agents and not to enemy agents.
I want to come back to the Regulation, upon which we have spent a good deal of heat, which I think was quite unnecessary. I am going to remind the House exactly why, in the case of the original Bill when we discussed this Regulation, my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General reminded the Committee, and I have to remind the House now, that this Regulation proved a most important Regulation during the course of the War. It was a Regulation which enabled us to arrest persons who undoubtedly had secured, and were securing, information which might have been disastrous to this country. I have been informed by the War Office, and I say it with full responsibility to the House now, that they are satisfied of the necessity of maintaining this Regulation at the present time. Information is collected which we desire to stop—information which ought not to be collected if we are considering the safety of this country—and when I say that I am quite sure that the House as a whole will accept the statement.
Let me come to what this Regulation does. Really, the first line is the answer to all those expansive speeches which may be delivered, one of which has been delivered and one or two of which I may hope will be delivered. My experience in the Committee leads me to remember that what takes place in a dress rehearsal
is sometimes repeated on the first or second night, and therefore I am to a certain extent acquainted with the rôles which will be played.

Captain BENN: This is a new production.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am glad to hear that there is to be a new production. We really need not go beyond the first line—" Where a person without lawful authority or excuse." The hon. Member for Central Hull gave us a lurid picture of persons coming over here with no sinister purpose, or in the interests of humanity at large and of civilisation in general, thinking internationally, and all the rest of it, to express their kindly views towards this country and the various classes in it. He pictured, then, that they were going to be persecuted, and he looked across and fixed his eyes upon mo as though I should enjoy hunting those poor people, who were to be persecuted for my delight. That is really not so.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry to interrupt, but I must at once disassociate myself from any personal reference to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir E. POLLOCK: After all, what we have to deal with is persons whose activities are without lawful authority or excuse. Any person who comes into this country for the purpose of trade, or of making speeches in Hyde Park, for the interchance of views with the hon. and gallant Member, for the purpose of sharing his hospitality or of advancing civilisation in concert with him—all of these persons would have a lawful authority and excuse, and would be in no danger of arrest, still Jess of persecution. But the pictures change, and if we find foreign agents coming to this Country for a sinister purpose, for a purpose which endangers the safety of the country, and which we could satisfactorily prove before a jury—because the charge would have to be made there—if without lawful authority or excuse such persons came and collected information, is there a single Member of this House who would say that we ought to leave ourselves exposed to a danger of that sort, and not be ready to continue this Regulation? It is put to me that this matter ought to be dealt with by a Bill—by permanent legislation. That is a very fair argument indeed; but what is to be done in the
meantime? I am not sure that hon. Members opposite would suggest that a Bill of that sort could, or, indeed, ought, to go through with any great rapidity. I think it is a Bill that ought to be discussed. If you were to refuse to give these powers until the 31st August you might leave the country naked and open to its enemies. We are informed by the War Office, and those who are responsible and have the means of judging and the duty of informing the House, and who tell me that I may tell the House, that these powers are necessary, and I ask the House to continue this Regulation so that where a person comes and cannot offer any lawful authority or excuse or justification for his conduct in this country may take measures to preserve itself, and in asking that these limited powers should be continued I believe that I shall have the general assent of Members of this House.

Colonel WILLIAMS: The Solicitor-General will remember that the first day the Committee met I moved the adjournment on the ground that we had not the information necessary to give an intelligent consideration to the Bill that was then before the House. I was severely taken to task by his colleague the Attorney-General, and I complained that I had not been able to obtain the Regulations. The Attorney-General said:
I am sorry that the copies were not immediately available. I had taken care to make arrangements, as I thought complete arrangements, that there should be in the hands of every Member of this Committee a copy of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which we should not reach for some hours yet.
I asked:
Can the Attorney-General give me an assurance that this copy is up-to-date? 
The Attorney-General said:
If the hon. and gallant Member's copy is the copy consolidated and revised to the 31st May, 1919, it is.
Then I said I was told that some Regulations had been altered since that date. The Attorney-General said:
I am not responsible for that statement.
That was a clear indication to me that this copy was up to date. I admit that I ought to have known that that Regulation was altered, but I did not discover it until to-night, and I discovered it about half-an-hour before the Solicitor-General discovered it, because he did not know
that it had been altered. I submit that it is not fair for the Government to deal with the House in this way. Here we have a most important Regulation, which is the kernel of two very drastic Regulations, 51 and 55, dealing with the power of arrest and search. It is the foundation-stone of both those Regulations, the only thing that makes those Regulations worth anything at all. Yet we do not know what we are discussing. Very few Members of the House knew of the alteration. This Regulation applied originally to the nationals of four enemy countries, Germany, Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria. It has been altered within the last few months quietly, to include the nationals of another 40 or 50 nations, not only neutral nations, but Allied nations. It has been made to apply to the subjects: of the French Republic who have been fighting side by side with us, and nobody knew, not even the Solicitor-General, until to-night.

Mr. INSKIP: It was read out in Committee.

Colonel WILLIAMS: But I did not realise, and the House did not realise, that it was altered, and I only discovered it to-night, and I was assured by the Attorney-General that my copy of the Regulations was up to date. The time has come when we should withdraw this Regulation, and should make it apply only to those nations which were our late enemy. There is very considerable feeling on the other side of the Channel that their subjects are not receiving due consideration, and I would suggest that this should be made merely to apply to agents of Governments that were our late enemies.

Captain BENN: The Solicitor-General appeals to the House so that in our hour of stress we shall be able to deal with" our enemies who are trying to collect information against us, and the House cheers him because it has essentially what the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin has called a war mind. The main thing to be done if we are to advance at all into any new realms is to get into a peace state of mind. The first Bill introduced was called the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill. We understood it was to continue certain legislation which were necessary during the war to protect us against our enemies. Part of that legislation
was a Regulation of the most stringent kind giving us certain powers to arrest and deal with spies of our late enemies, Germany and Austria. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Middlesbrough remarked in Committee that it was something strange speaking about enemy foreign Powers. It was then discovered that a complete change has been made in the Regulation. I submit that it is an outrage on the spirit of the legislation passed during the War if, after the War has closed, Regulations are to be amended, and then we are to be asked to prolong these Regulations after the official termination of the War itself and with a change so that they shall apply not only to late enemy nationals, but to other nationals, neutrals and Allies. This is enacting the war legislation in an entirely new form.
The Solicitor-General says there is no one in this House who will not wish them to have protection against enemy spies. I should never dream for a moment of refusing to give to the Home Office or the War Office any necessary powers, but why does he say that it is so much more urgent in the year 1920, when the War is finished, and that when the greatest and most menacing enemy is in the dust, that is the moment to endow these offices with new Regulations giving powers greater than those which they possessed before, and which were considered sufficient, and proved sufficient, in 1914 to deal with the situation? It has been repeatedly stated, and hon. and gallant Members know perfectly well that within a few weeks of the outbreak of War all the people who had been sent over here for the purpose of communicating military information to the enemy were laid by the heels under the powers which the Solicitor-General still possesses. What, then, can be the reason for giving these new powers? The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Department concerned asked for the powers. Of course they asked for them. What Department in the world, being what a Department is, would fail to ask for a continuation of the powers it possesses?

Sir E. POLLOCK: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has overlooked the fact that this Regulation, in its amended form, was inserted by way of Amendment in Committee. It was before the Committee in its amended form, and the Attorney-General asked in particular that
this Regulation as amended, and as it stands to-day, should be inserted. Up to that time he had hoped it would be unnecessary, but it was found necessary in its amended form to ask the Committee to accept it.

Captain BENN: I fail to see that that affects what I am saying. I was proceeding to show that the War Office and the Home Office and the Government Departments generally were already possessed of powers that were ample for the purpose of protecting this country against the machinations of the secret services of other countries. They have proved it. They have those powers now. Why, now that the War is over, should they seek new powers? No case has been made out, even on the military ground. What is really the purpose of this Regulation? It is not a necessity at all. It is because the secret service work during the War has grown to such dimensions that no one wishes to destroy it. I do not deny that there may be some value in secret service work, but I submit, with great respect, that the value of the Cabinet Noir in time of peace is grossly exaggerated. The Departments are apt to accumulate information for the love of doing their work efficiently, and information which is not really of the value attaching to it. I have seen, only in a very junior capacity, of course, something of this Department during the War, and I know there is no money we would not ask for to complete our card index and get the information we want. But that is different from asking the House of Commons for such powers as these. The Secret Service Vote, which used to be £50,000, or it may have been £20,000, ten years ago, is now, I believe, £200,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: £500,000.

Captain BENN: It is at least over £200,000; in fact, I am not sure whether it is that or £400,000. It is certainly an enormous sum. To give these powers is not advisable. The intention really is not to cope with military dangers. Whom are we to fight next? What is the purpose of beginning again, under the influence of the War mind, to reconstruct the machinery of espionage and counter espionage and all the dirty ramifications which it is bound to bring? I do not think that is the intention of the Government at all. They wish to stamp out
political doctrine to which they object. That is the real reason. Although I have not the least sympathy with a great many of the doctrines which would be oppressed by this, I have a great sympathy with liberty, and I do not believe that any doctrine, however offensive, is best dealt with by police repression. The best way is to show people by the light of reason that a doctrine is bad, and if you do that they will turn to something better. We have had instances of how this is carried out. Herr Ballin was undoubtedly employed on agency work by the Germans. Supposing in the course of his other business some person was found to be in communication with Herr Ballin. I submit that if the Home Office desired they could hale that person before the courts, on the plea that Herr Ballin was in his life an agent of the Germans. Take Monsieur Litvinoff, who may very likely be engaged in something of which we would all disapprove. Does anyone mean to say that anyone in communication with him or who even had his address in his pocket, really has committed an offence which would enable the Government to bring him before the courts?

Sir E. POLLOCK: "Without lawful authority" covers the whole Section.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson), who has an excellent character and is Chairman of a very important party in this country, was subject to police espionage when he went to Basle There is not the least doubt that if the Government wished they could have made him amenable under this Regulation. What military need can there be for flouting liberty in this way? That is what we object to. We do not like to see all the submission that was made very willingly to every sort of restriction and repression during the War, continued by the Government merely in order to put down political opinion. That is the gravamen of our charge against the Government. Let me refer to an article written by Sir Basil Thomson in the "New World," called "The International Police Section of the League of Nations," in which he writes:
Months ago it was realised that the spread of communistic ideas, attended by all the things that are most hateful to democracy—despotism, cruelty, torture and murder—was a danger, not to one country, but to all. Immediately the civilised countries,
even Germany herself, began to stretch out hands to others who know whether some common action could not be devised to stave off the disease which threatened the existence of civilised society.
This Regulation and the money taken are not intended to protect us against an enemy, because we have no enemies. [Laughter.] Who dares to say that we have enemies? I submit that we have no enemies. The purpose of this is a political purpose. Let me read the Regulation, with the Amendments which the Solicitor-General has read—
Where a person without lawful authority or excuse either within or without the United Kingdom has been in communication or has attempted to communicate with a foreign agent, and is subsequently found within the United Kingdom, he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the persons with whom he so communicated was a foreign agent.
10.0 P.M.
That is to say a person who goes abroad to foreign countries, unless he asks the permission of the Government to go, because that is the only way he could secure "lawful authority," may find himself brought before a court as an offender under this Regulation. The hon. and learned Gentleman says "No," but I submit that is the plain meaning of the words. The Regulation continues, "a person shall, unless he proves to the contrary, be deemed to have been in communication with enemy agents if he has either visited the address of the foreign agent." It will be seen that the onus of proof is on the person charged which is a complete reversal of the ordinary practice. There is further," a person shall be deemed to have committed this offence if either out of or within the kingdom the name or address or any other information regarding the foreign agent has been found in his possession." That is to say, if some one were to go and put an envelope into the letter box which contained information or something about the foreign agent there would be a charge and the person concerned could not prove to the contrary.

Sir E. POLLOCK: It is quite obvious he would be able to show immediately that he had a lawful excuse. The hon. Gentleman may differ from me on law and, while I am very sorry, I should prefer my own interpretation to his. He may be very anxious and frightened but he need not be nervous about himself. He
will be quite all right. He will have lawful authority and a lawful excuse.

Captain BENN: I prefer the hon. and learned gentleman's opinion of law to ray own. He is a lawyer, and I should abide by his opinion, but unfortunately he is not the person who is carrying this out. I can give him a ease in illustration. There was a Sinn Fein Member of Parliament who had thrust into his hand a letter. He alleged he did not know who gave it to him or anything about it. You may not believe him, but I confess I do. Shortly afterwards he was arrested and sentenced, and is being punished on the charge that he was in possession of that letter.

Mr. DONALD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that sort of thing is going on in Ireland every day.

Captain BENN: In that event what becomes of the Government case and of the statement that this sort of thing cannot possibly occur. I leave the hon. and learned Gentleman and his supporters to settle their differences between themselves. As far as I am concerned the case is complete. It goes on to define enemy agent in terms which read out in Committee by the Attorney-General. The terms are very wide—
An 'agent' includes any person who is or has been or is reasonably suspected of being or of having been employed by a foreign Power directly or indirectly committing either within or without the United Kingdom any act prejudicial to the interests of the State.
I submit that such wide powers, of such general application, which may be applied in so oppressive and unjust a manner, are not necessary for the military safety of the country, can only be used and are only intended to be used in a political sense, are likely to give the gravest offence to those who have been fighting with us in the War, including the United States of America, and are subversive of the very principles for which we should be most urgently insistent at this moment, namely, the preservation of friendly feeling throughout the world, so that we may emerge from the miasma of war fears and hates into a time of peace and goodwill among men.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: I intervene at this late hour because I think it may possibly be useful to the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken if one who has been rather intimately
associated with these Regulations during the past five years, should point out the necessity for them. I do not think the Solicitor-General stands in any need of support from me, because a more lucid statement of the meaning and object of this Regulation I have never heard. The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down says he would never dream of refusing to give the War Office any necessary power, and I intervene in the hope that I may be able possibly even to convince him that these powers are necessary in the interests of national safety. I need not remind the House that the foreign agent to whom this Regulation refers is a person defined as reasonably suspected of being employed by a foreign Power to commit an act prejudicial to the safety of the State or in the interests of a foreign Power. I think, if my hon. and gallant Friend would study the words in which a person who has been in communication with a foreign agent is defined in this Regulation, some of his fears would be removed. It says if he has "consorted with" him or "visited his address," or "a person who has been found in possession of a note of the address of a foreign agent," or "who has supplied the address to another person, or who has obtained it from another person." Every one of the details given in the Regulation are such as have been found necessary in pursuit of spies during the War, and very clearly they are words that would not be used for the class of persons that he has in mind, of whose persecution he stands in so much fear. The fact is that these Regulations embody the accumulated experience of the whole period of the War, that is to say, the accumulated experience of the Department which has been engaged in tracing the activities of enemy agents and enemy spies and bringing them to justice.
The hon. and gallant Member suggests that we had all the machinery necessary to deal with enemy spies before the War. That is not the case. The Department which dealt with these cases prior to the War was very much hampered in dealing with these enemy agents. We had only the Official Secrets Act of 1911, an Act which, though it gave some powers to the military authority, did not give those powers which the experience of the War has proved are essentially necessary if
justice is to be done to enemy agents, and this Regulation has been built up just as it has been found necessary from day to day to meet the practical difficulties as they arose. It is essentially a Regulation which embodies every improvement upon the old Official Secrets Act of 1911, and, speaking for myself, I hope sincerely that before many months are past the Government will take in hand the revision of the old Official Secrets Act, and will give us the powers which have been found necessary in this War and which, as experience has proved, ought to have been in the hands of the Executive in those early days of the War in August, 1914, when the activities of enemy aliens were so insistent in this country. This Regulation as it stands has proved effective. It is not brought down to the House as a thing evolved in some theoretical mind. It has been evolved by men engaged in the task of disclosing enemy activities. It has proved extremely effective during the War, and practically every enemy agent who has been caught and convicted during the War has been convicted and punished under this Regulation.

The question arises as to whether this Regulation is still needed. There is no question that, until the League of Nations has been instituted, until it is working satisfactorily, until the need for armaments in every European country has passed, it is essential that military secrets and naval secrets should be preserved. I am not here to argue as to whether, after the League of Nations has been formed, it will then be necessary to keep from foreign Powers naval and military secrets, but surely until you have the League of Nations in actual operation, it is essential that you should prevent the leakage of naval and military information. There are technical details with regard to ships, munitions, material, works, plans and documents, and indeed all the official information which it is necessary in the interests of the State to keep inviolate. Under this Regulation there is some hope of keeping these secrets intact. Let not the House suppose that the activities of foreign agents have ceased with the declaration of the Armistice. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) makes a point that to-day we have no enemies in the world. Had we any
enemies in 1913 or 1914 before this War broke out? There are those who sat on those benches who led us to suppose there were no enemies in those days. I do not wish to dwell on that point, but clearly common prudence dictates that we should guard the country against the same dangers to-day as existed in 1914, though perhaps they were not recognised. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that we had all the machinery we had in 1914 and during the War at the present disposal of the Executive That is not the case. If the House will permit a personal observation, I had the honour to control the whole of the services which were directed to countering enemy activities in this country and the British Empire. That machinery, drawn up under my direction, was an exceedingly intricate and complex thing; its ramifications extended not only throughout this country, but every Dominion of the Empire, and it was closely connected by liaison officers with all our Allies The vastness of that organisation has not been realised in this-country, though I do not know that I need dwell upon that now But I should like to point out that to-day that machinery does not exist. There is no censorship of the cables, nor of the postal service. These two services alone enabled us to detect the activities of many agents throughout the War. You have no examination at the ports of this country—a service instituted during the War, being found necessary, and which no longer exists—and properly so in times of peace.

Let it not be supposed, however, that, while the machinery has ceased to operate, the activities of foreign agents has ceased. The fact that the machinery has gone by which we can hope to deal with the matter effectively makes their operations the more safe, and probably these activities are more continuous even than they were during the War. I also suggest that some hon. Members seem to overlook the fact that these powers which the Executive ask to be continued until the end of August are in existence to-day, and have been in existence during the past year. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Leith, drew a very moving picture of what might happen to an hon. Member if he was engaged in Switzerland, or some other neutral country, in peaceful operations calculated to be an advantage, I gather, to the cause of civilisation.

Captain W. BENN: It did happen.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: It did happen? But I did not gather that the hon. Gentleman concerned was either arrested, brought before a Court, or tried for any offence against these Regulations. The fact is that these Regulations exist, and the hon. gentleman to whom reference has been made, so far as these Regulations were concerned, went unscathed. Whatever happens to-night, when, as I hope, this Regulation will be confirmed and extended, I shall still be perfectly convinced that the hon. Member could be engaged in the same activities as in the past without any fear of the consequences under this Regulation. I have said that I hope personally there may be an amended Official Secrets Act. I think the hiatus between the repeal of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which terminate automatically the moment peace is declared, and the date on which a new Official Secrets Act comes into force, should, in the interests of this country, be bridged. It seems to me essential that the activities of foreign agents should be closely watched in the intervening period till we have secured, as I hope we shall, a revised Official Secrets Act. It seems to me we should remember that no prosecution can be undertaken solely by the military authorities. To-day, as the Regulation exists at this moment, any competent military authority can launch a prosecution if he so desires. That has been the case during the last 4½ years of war, but, so far as I know, no case has been produced in this House of an abuse of power by the authorities. The Government is not asking to continue this power to competent military authorities, but on the contrary, they are asking that this power should only vest either in the learned Attorney-General or in a police officer or in some special authority. The exact words of the provision are:
the Attorney-General for England or Ireland, or an officer of police, or a person acting under the special authority of the Government Department concerned.
Those words define the matter generally, so that no prosecution can be undertaken merely on the fiat of some military officer. We should keep in mind that these cases have been prepared and prosecutions initiated by persons who

have throughout the War been giving these matters their very close attention. I have myself the very greatest admiration for the manner in which this duty has been performed throughout the War, and I can assure the House that the responsibility of the officers engaged in this task is realised by them to be very heavy, and they have given the most anxious consideration to every case of suspicion that has arisen during the War, and I feel the House may rest assured that no-hasty or oppressive action is possible, having in view the character of the gentlemen who will be called upon to administer this Regulation. It is directed solely against evil-doers, and no person other than an evil-doer can possibly be affected adversely. As the Solicitor-General has pointed out, lawful excuse is a valid answer to the charge, and all the ordinary remedies against abuse of power by those entrusted with these powers remain available, including, finally, an appeal for redress to this House if any wrong were established.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: We have heard hon. Members arguing that the prewar powers dealing with espionage are sufficient to cause spies to be laid by the heels. Let us consider what happened in time of peace. I think I am correct in saying that all the most dangerous spying is done in time of peace, and not in time of war. It is a case of crede experto. I have spied for my country in times past. I have employed spies of almost every nationality in times of peace. I have received valuable information from officers—friendly and unfriendly—in the country with which I was concerned, and I am certain that unless things are vastly changed, reports are now being compiled in this country, ready to be sent abroad at the very first possible opportunity. Therefore, I say, that instead of reducing the powers dealing with espionage, they should on the contrary be vastly strengthened.

Sir E. POLLOCK: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 48.

Division No. 24.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Atkey, A. R.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Armitage, Robert
Baird, John Lawrence


Baldwin, Stanley
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Hambro, Captain Angus Vaidemar
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Parker, James


Barlow, Sir Montague
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barnett, Major R. W.
Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barnston, Major Harry
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Perring, William George


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Higham, Charles Frederick
Pollock, Sir Ernest M


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Betterton, Henry B.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Prescott, Major W. H.


Bigland, Alfred
Hood, Joseph
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Rankin, Captain James S.


Blane, T. A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Berwick, Major G. O.
Hurd, Percy A.
Remer, J. B.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Jephcott, A. R
Rodger, A. K.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Jellett, William Morgan
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Britton, G. B.
Jesson, C.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Johnson, L. S.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Simm, M. T.


Burn, Col. C. R (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Carr, W. Theodore
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Casey, T. W.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Chadwick, R. Burton
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Lindsay, William Arthur
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Clough, Robert
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lort-Williams, J.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Taylor, J.


Courthope, Major George L.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lyon, Laurance
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Townley, Maximillan G.


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Waddington, R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Donald, Thompson
Maddocks, Henry
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Magnus, Sir Philip
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Manville, Edward
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Mason, Robert
Waring, Major Walter


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Meysey-Thomson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Foreman, Henry
Mitchell, William Lane
Whitla, Sir William


Forrest, Walter
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morison, Thomas Brash
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Gange, E. Stanley
Morris, Richard
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Morrison, Hugh
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Younger, Sir George


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Neal, Arthur



Gregory, Holman
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Capt. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Griggs, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hancock, John George
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Hayward, Major Evan
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Briant, Frank
Irving, Dan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Tootill, Robert


Cape, Thomas
Kiley, James D.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lawson, John J.
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Granville, Harold James
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Major Barnes and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.

Question put accordingly, "That the words" 18A—Prohibition on communications
with agents of foreign Powers, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 50.

Division No. 25.]
AYES.
[10.35 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas R. S.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gilbert, James Daniel
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Armitage, Robert
Goff, Sir R. Park
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Atkey, A. R.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Baird, John Lawrence
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Baldwin, Stanley
Gregory, Holman
Parker, James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel John
Perkins, Walter Frank


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Perring, William George


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Rankin, Captain James S.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Higham, Charles Frederick
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Remer, J. R.


Bigland, Alfred
Hood, Joseph
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Roberts, Sir s. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Blane, T. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Rodger, A. K.


Berwick, Major G. O.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Bridgeman, William Clive
Jessen, C.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)-


Britton, G. B.
Johnson, L. S.
Simm, M. T.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Carr, W. Theodore
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Casey, T. W.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Taylor, J.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Clough, Robert
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Townley, Maximillan G.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lyon, Laurance
Waddington, R.


Calvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Courthope, Major George L.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maddocks, Henry
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Waring, Major Walter


Dalziel, Sir D, (Lambeth, Brixton)
Manville, Edward
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Mason, Robert
Whitla, Sir William


Doyle, N. Grattan
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mitchell, William Lane
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Foreman, Henry
Morison, Thomas Brash
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Forrest, Walter
Morris, Richard
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morrison, Hugh
Younger, Sir George


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Gange, E. Stanley
Neal, Arthur
Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.



Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayward, Major Evan
Royce, William Stapleton


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hogge, James Myles
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Briant, Frank
Irving, Dan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cairns, John
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Tootill, Robert


Cape, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Klley, James D.
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John J.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. A. Parkinson.


Hancock, John George
O'Grady, Captain James

Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out, in the third col. of the Schedule, the words: "so far as is
necessary to control the export of arms and ammunition."—[Major Baird.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to know why when the Bill was printed it was necessary to have these restrictions on dealings in war materials. This is a matter of some importance. There has been a good deal of agitation in some newspapers in regard to dealing in war materials for sale on the Continent. This Regulation deals with the control of the export of arms and ammunition. Can we be informed, or would it be against the public interest, why it is now considered necessary to dispose of this Regulation which controls the export of arms and ammunition to the Mad Mullah, or to any foreign country? I know of no change in the international relations of these foreign countries and their neighbours which explains the reason for omitting this Regulation. In twelve months we have exported arms and ammunition to the extent of £100,000,000 to one of our late deadly enemies.

Captain W. BENN: Can the Under-Secretary to the Home Office tell us how it is that sporting-gun factors may sell a double-barrelled shot-gun, but not a single-barrelled shot-gun, without approval of some competent military authority?

Major BAIRD: My impression is that it will not be possible for my hon. and gallant Friend to buy either a single-barrelled or a double-barrelled gun without a licence. At any rate there is no discrimination between them.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, the reason why the House is asked to agree to the elimination of these words is that under the authority which we possess under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1879, it is not possible to control the export of arms, and the question of the export of arms is very closely affected by the International Convention which was signed in Paris in September last by all the Powers concerned. In that Convention we undertook, in common with the other Powers who signed it, obligations regarding the prohibition of the export of arms, which we cannot carry out unless the House consents to this alteration of the Regulation, for the reason that, as the Regulation now stands, the position would be that any person could buy, sell, or deal in war material
without restriction so long as he was prepared to show that there was no intention of exporting it, and it would be very difficult to prove that there was such intention. The Regulation in this form enables us to deal with that. Without it, he only control that could be exercised would be to open every case that leaves the ports, and that is clearly impossible.
Legislation will be necessary, and, as has been stated, a Bill will be presented to the House to deal with this matter on broad lines, and every opportunity will be given of considering the question in detail. At the moment we ask the House to consent to this elimination, in order to enable us effectively to carry out the obligations which we have entered into with the other nations at Paris. As regards the question raised by the hon-and gallant Member for Leith, I confess I do not know what he refers to, but perhaps he will kindly put down a question on the subject.

Mr. BILLING: I desire to protest as briefly as possible against the general closure of the Debate which has arisen. I presume that if we take this any further it will be closured in its turn. We come down here to debate these questions, which are all-important, particularly the one which has just been closured by the Government, after a very able speech in support of it—

Mr. SPEAKER: No discussion on the Closure can be permitted at this stage.

Mr. BILLING: We have been asked this evening to legislate in the same comprehensive way as to whether we shall review or renew our espionage system, as to whether we shall control the export of arms—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may only discuss the Question now before the House, and may not review the Debate.

Mr. BILLING: I was coming to the question of the export of arms, and finally whether or not it should be legal to sell chocolates in a theatre after eight o'clock.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise in this discussion.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out Regulations 39BBB, 39C, 39CC, 39DD and 39FF.
In Committee there was a Division on Regulation 39BBB, which was only carried by a majority of one. Considerable feeling was expressed, and at one time if we had divided we should have beaten the Government. There is at present great congestion in shipping, and if we are to obtain the goods which we want that congestion should be remedied. Whatever may have been necessary during the war, it is no longer necessary to give the Shipping Controller these great powers. For instance, 39BBB provides:
39BBB.—(1) The Shipping Controller may make Orders regulating, restricting or giving directions with respect to the nature of the trades in which ships are to be employed, the traffic to be carried therein, and the terms and conditions on which the traffic is to be carried, the ports at which cargo is to be loaded or discharged or passengers embarked or disembarked (including directions requiring ships to proceed to specified ports for the purpose of loading or unloading cargo or embarking or disembarking passengers), the ports at which consignees of cargo are to take delivery thereof, the rates (maxima or minima) to be charged for freight or hire of ships and the carriage of passengers, the form of bills of lading and passenger tickets, the building, repairing, equipping, refitting, converting or altering of any ship or vessel* the user of and the work to be done in or with any dock, shipyard, dry dock, or other accommodation adapted or capable of being adapted for building, repairing, equipping, or refitting ships or vessels (in this Regulation included in the term 'shipyard'), and any plant in or about the same, the priority and manner in which and the places at which orders or contracts for building, repairing, equipping, refitting, converting or altering ships or vessels are to be executed, or any such work is to be done, and the payments to be made: in respect thereof, and other matters affecting shipping, where it appears to the Controller necessary or expedient to make any such order for the purpose of making shipping available for the needs of the country in such manner as to make the best use thereof having regard to the circumstances of the time or for providing and maintaining an efficient supply of shipping.
Is it necessary that these great powers should be continued for another six months, fourteen months after the Armistice?
It is really almost inconceivable that anyone should ask that the whole of the shipping of the country should be under the power of one man, who decides where a ship shall go, where it shall embark its passengers, how it is to be repaired, and where repaired. The Controller is to be dictator. He can order a ship to remain in port or go out, or to go to another place
and remain there. The House knows now what it is going to do. If hon. Members confer power of that sort, they cannot be surprised if there is trouble with the financial and commercial world.

11.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This Amendment raises one of the most vital questions for the commercial well-being of this country. I have had at least 25 years' experience, or at least observation, of the working of shipping in one of the greatest seaports in the world. I think it is generally conceded that the creation of the Ministry of Shipping was necessary during the War. As has been said, we are now at least sixteen months past the date of the Armistice. We have congestion at the ports, consequently lack of food and raw materials, with high prices, disorganisation, general danger to the trade of the country and distress among the people. The pride of the British mercantile marine and one of the main causes of its great success in the commercial supremacy of this country has been the independence of the shipowners and of those who work with them. They built it up; they know how to run it; and it was entirely due to their splendid services and those of the seamen that the mercantile marine played a part second only to the British Navy in our supremacy of the sea. What is happening to-day? Shipowners are unable to handle their tonnage in a way that they best know how. Anybody who knows anything about shipping knows that the secret of efficient use of tonnage is to turn it round, as they say, as quickly as possible. I do not know whether I am quite right, but I will state that if the shipping industry was allowed freely to handle its tonnage in accordance with the needs of the country, the immediate or very quick result would be that there would be less congestion at the docks, a swift disappearance of those huge piles of food and raw material which are rotting often in the case of food or lying useless in the case of raw material for manufactured goods required in the industries of the country. His Majesty's Government have to justify this power to-night. The Executive come down asking for further legislative powers of control of shipping. Before the House agrees to that an overwhelming case ought to be made for the retention of the powers of shipping control for another six months. Unless that
is done this House will be lacking in its duty if it gives support to the demands of the Executive. It might be urged with considerable force that to relax the whole of the Regulations would be a rather dangerous experiment in view of the system which has at present grown up. I am quite sure if the shipowners were allowed to take this matter in hand, with a committee of their own, assisted by the men who work with them, they could do so. They would, for instance, have the Sailors' and Firemen's Union to assist them. That Union has time and again shown its patriotism, not only during the War, and a spirit of reasonableness which the ship-owners at one time did not fully recognise, but latterly, I think I am not wrong in saying, they came to give their due meed of praise to that. I notice that my hon. Friend (Sir W. Raeburn), who is a large ship-owner, agrees with that statement. I believe if the Government took their courage in both hands and let this great and vital industry go free that industry would speedily assert all its power and its vast accumulation and experience, and we should see a better condition of affairs, not only with regard to the shipping industry, but the whole range of other industries. These are the difficulties in connection with getting coal abroad, and only those who know, as some do, the vital part exports of coal played in the maintenance of our mercantile marine appreciate what it would be to have an absence of the fetters which cause irritating delays which go on at present. A large portion—eight per cent., I am sure—of the tramp mercantile marine goes through the port of Cardiff in the course of twelve months, and it simply has to extricate itself and fight for an exit, owing to the way in which the shipping industry is endeavouring to carry on. You will never get anything approaching the re-establishment of freedom in the shipping industry, and the consequent immediate easing of our industrial and social difficulties, until you let shipping go free. There is no sign of relaxation here and no mitigation in the control of shipping.
The time has come for a release to be granted, and I would suggest to the Government this. Cannot they meet us in this matter? It is very urgent. They are asking for the full term of six months;
is there not some way of meeting us by at any rate halving that, and let them come back for powers to this House again in, say, three months' time? I want to press this very strongly. This is a subject on which I have rather more than a slight knowledge. If the Government cannot see their way to give the complete freedom which we ask, surely it is not asking too much in this vital matter, at any rate, to meet us half-way. Will they give it us till May 31st? Here is the best time to do it, in the summer season. In mid-winter there are difficulties in relation to the conduct of shipping both on sea and in the docks which we all, perhaps, appreciate, but here is the most favourable time of the year for making a new start, and I do hope that we shall get something from the Government. I am sure that if they do they will give new hope to the shipowners and to the whole industry. I do not press the claim merely of the shipowners. I do not own a single share in a ship; I wish I did, but from such knowledge as I have spread over a quarter of a century of observation—anyhow, of the urgent need of the removal of this paralysing control. I make this appeal, although I desire to pay a most generous tribute to Sir Joseph Maclay and those who work with him for the very splendid work they have done. I do not know what Sir Joseph Maclay's views are, but of a surety he would be very glad to be relieved of these duties.

Sir W. RAEBURN: It is not very often that a shipowner gets a chance on the floor of this House to say a word about this particular industry, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) for the word he has put in for the shipowners to-night. The majority of the items, such as the question of repair and fitting out of boats, have been for a long time in abeyance, and I did wonder when I saw some alterations in other parts of the Schedule there was no alteration made here. But I rise rather to justify the Controller, because the difficulties in the ports to-day are not to be laid at the door of the Shipping Controller. The Meat Controller, the Wheat Controller and the Coal Controller are the Controllers who are doing a very great deal of damage to the trade of the country at the present moment and the sooner some of these controls come off the better. So far as the directing of ships is concerned, there would be none at all but
for the fact, which the Controller has put to me quite plainly, that the Government come to him and say they have meat in the Argentine or Australia, or sugar in Cuba, and they must be given tonnage. It might have been thought that if anybody was going to propose an Amendment to this, it might have been a shipowner, but we have not done this because we have had very reasonable treatment from the Shipping Controller all the way through, and I think it redounds to the credit of the shipping community that it has willingly submitted to all the restrictions put upon it. We see the end of this coming very soon, and I do say to my right hon. Friend that we have nothing to fear—I speak from a shipowner's point of view—if this control lasts even until 31st August, if some undertaking can be given by my right hon. Friend that the same treatment that is now being meted out is going to be continued.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Shipowners will make far less money if the control comes off.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I am not looking at it from the monetary point of view. I am not out in all I am doing to make money, but I am out to do the best for my country. We have shown that, and still wish to do it. If it were only money that weighed with me I might have joined with hon. Members in opposing this. But I do not think anyone can dogmatise as to whether the Amendment would be of any benefit to shipowners. I think if we were to be freed from these restrictions, we might make more money, but I am looking at it from the right point of view when I say that, if we have to submit for some time longer to a few of the restrictions, we are doing it willingly. But I hope the control will be taken off at the earliest possible moment. I shall have something very strong, however, to say about some of the other controls that are blocking our ports at the present time. I am exceedingly glad that I have had this opportunity of really saying how unfair it would be to put the blame for a continuation of this position on the Shipping Controller, and to repeat that if you allow us to go on for a little longer you will find it is not going to be to the detriment of the country.

Mr. SEXTON: I have some hesitation in opposing this, for I would still be favourable to the Shipping Controller
having a reasonable control, even under existing conditions. I find myself in the position of speaking for the Labour party and in support of the resolution of the right hon. Baronet for the City (Sir F. Banbury) for entirely different reasons to the right hon. Gentleman. The line in the Schedule "Powers of the Shipping Controller" seem at the first glance to be a very innocent thing. I have no doubt the intention of the Shipping Controller are good. But we are told that the road to a hypothetical region is fixed with good intentions. Disguised under 39DD, the Defence of the Realm Regulation reads:
Except under, and in pursuance of, a licence granted by the Shipping Controller, no British ship registered in the United Kingdom shall proceed to sea on any voyage whatsoever, and no British ship whatsoever shall proceed to sea from any port in the United Kingdom.
I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Raeburn) in regard to this suggestion, because with him I served on the Ways and Communications Committee, and there I found him most vigorous against the Minister of Transport having anything to do with ships or control in any way whatever. This Regulation prevents British ships proceeding to sea from any British port, but there is nothing to prevent any foreign ship coming to a British port and taking out a cargo that a British ship ought to take out. The foreign ship does not require a licence.
The real point we raise is that the Government have now, rightly or wrongly, justly or unjustly—I am not dealing with the ethics of the case—entered into an agreement with Russia to import foodstuffs into this country, and in return, I suppose, exports will go to Russia. If this Clause is allowed to go without opposition there is nothing to prevent the Shipping Controller from indirectly creating a blockade in any port other than a British port. Whether it is right or wrong to export to Russia I am not going to argue, but the fact is that the Government themselves have given countenance to it. Under this Clause the Shipping Controller will have the power to blockade any port, and a power like that in peace time is very dangerous to put into the hands of any department.

Sir W. RAEBURN: They had the same powers all through the war.

Mr. SEXTON: I am not complaining of the Shipping Controller but the power which it gives any man to do a certain thing. It is a very dangerous thing to give this uncontrolled power without submitting it to this House, and that is the reason why I oppose it.

Commander BELLAIRS: A very important question is involved in this proposal. It is not the merits of the Shipping Controller we have to discuss, and I cannot help agreeing with the proposal put forward by the ex-leader of the Liberal party, who suggested that the Government should bring their proposal up again on August 31st. The argument in favour of doing that is that we shall never get any Estimates for the Shipping Controller like we do for other Departments, and if they come up then we shall be able to discuss this question involving these wide powers.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (Colonel WILSON): The right hon. Gentleman opposite said it was the duty of the Government, and I fully agree with him, to make out a case for the retention of these very large powers which the Shipping Controller has at present, and he suggests that instead of putting the matter into the hands of the shipowners the Ministry should work with the various unions concerned. I would like to endorse every word which has been said about the loyalty of the Seamen and Firemen's Union and all the other unions in the mercantile marine during the war. I think we have shown by the transference of the work of the National Maritime Board into the hands of the unions themselves that we desire to do away with any Government control of the mercantile marine. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that it is our duty to show that we have real reason to ask for the continuance of these powers up to the 31st August next, but I would like to assure him that we have no intention of using these powers until then if we can possibly do away with them at any earlier date. The position of the Minister of Shipping in the matter of the retention of these powers is a very simple one. It is the policy of the Government that Government controlled maize, sugar, wheat, and so on should be brought into this country at Blue Book rates, and
therefore it is necessary to ask for the continuance of these powers in order that the Controller may fix the routes and prescribe the voyages of British ships. Without these powers it would be quite impossible for the Shipping Controller to fulfil his obligations to the Food Controller to maintain the country's essential supply of food imports. I am reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London that the powers of the Shipping Controller were only carried in Committee by one vote. That is true I was not a member of the Committee or I would have liked to put before it the work being performed at that moment by the Ministry of Shipping as regards the carriage to this country of Government owned cargoes which had to arrive in the United Kingdom between January and August.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Did not that majority of one in the Committee upstairs include four members of the Government?

Colonel WILSON: I cannot say, but I hope to alter that majority to-day even if I do not succeed in inducing the House to pass these powers without a division. I hope to satisfy hon. Members that the granting of the powers is in the national interest. At that time the Ministry of Shipping was responsible for a very large amount of Government owned cargo coming into the country between January and August, and has had to provide tonnage for wheat, sugar, maize, timber, and ships' plates to the total amount roughly of 7,500,000 tons. During the recess in order to do away as far as possible with the control of shipping we approached the owners concerned—the owners of tramp lines concerned and we made arrangements which will result in a large amount of that programme being carried in ships not under our direction. As a matter of fact with regard to timber, of which at that time there was half a million tons to be lifted, we have now only a matter of one or two shiploads to lift. As to ship's plate there are now only about 6,000 tons to be lifted in directed ships. The case of sugar is different, very small quantities are lifted by liners from South Africa and Peru and a slightly larger quantity, 70,000 tons, is lifted from the West Indies and Demerara. We need on the average about 100,000 tons of sugar a month, and in this connection we have made
arrangements with the tramp liners concerned to lift 50,000 tons a month of Cuban sugar at Government rates in non-directed ships. Then I come to wheat. At the time this bill was being discussed in Committee there was a million tons of wheat to be lifted from Australia alone. We have made arrangements that the whole of the residue of the Australian purchase shall be rifted by liner tonnage that will require no direction. But that cannot be said about all the wheat supplies to be brought to this country. It is true that in North America supplies are very short. I am hoping it will not be necessary to lift what there is by directed tramp tonnage. It all depends on the freight market. I cannot say what the freight market is going to be, but the liners concerned can carry all wheat that is required from North America and need no directed tramp tonnage, but the Ministry of Shipping must have the powers in order to keep the rates at a reasonable figure. The shortage of wheat in North America has made it necessary to bring a great deal more wheat and maize from South America and the result is that during April and May the Wheat Commission now require about £00,000 tons of shipping per month from the Plate. We shall be able to arrange for a good deal of this to be lifted in the ex-enemy ships, those which are being managed by the Ministry of Shipping at present, but a great deal of tonnage will have to be and is being found from directed tramp tonnage. If these powers are not given to the Shipping Controller it would be necessary for the Wheat Com mission, bringing in essential commodities into this country, to go into the market and charter at the market rates or to bring essential food products to this country at the open commercial rate. If the freight goes down to what the Government pays at present there will be no necessity for the Shipping Controller to exercise these powers which I am asking for, but at present, although the Government freight has been increased as from January 1st, it is considerably higher than the freight at which essential commodities are brought to this country in directed shipping. Let me take the Plate, in which our largest commitments are as regards commercial freight. I should not like to tie myself down to an actual figure because there is no grain on
private account coming into this country—all the grain is Government grain—but the freight for linseed is somewhere about 180s. and varies between 190s. and 150s.

Mr. SEDDON: Is that a fair comparison?

Colonel WILSON: I do not think it is, but I am taking wheat as delivered in France as the nearest comparison I can get as a commercial freight. I agree that it is difficult, but those are the only figures I could possibly get. The Commercial Freight from the Plate is about 170s. to-day. The Government freight at present is 107s. That is a very large difference. When dealing with hundreds and thousands of tons it would be a very large difference to the Exchequer and also to the cost of food. I go to sugar. I have no United Kingdom reports as to the commercial freights from Cuba, whence we have to lift 100,000 tons a month, but the commercial freight for Marseilles is 105s. and the Government rate is 85s. That is a very large difference to the country and the Exchequer, and it would undoubtedly largely increase the price of food in this country. In addition to that, several Members have alluded to the question of coal. We need these powers of direction and licence at present in order that coal should be distributed in the United Kingdom. Only the other day hon. Members from Ireland were asking me about the position of coal there, and they asked me to exercise these powers in order that Ireland shall be supplied with the coal which is absolutely essential. Hon. Members are constantly urging me not to do away with control, but, on the contrary, to increase it. I am being urged from every direction. There is a great shortage of iron ore in this country. The requirements, roughly, are about 500,000 tons per month, and the stocks are so small that in some cases there is grave danger of unemployment. I am urged to direct ships to Bilbao in order to bring iron ore here, and, while the Shipping Controller is not anxious to use these powers, I quite agree that it is his duty in such cases to use his influence to bring home the ore that-is necessary to keep work going. It is perfectly true that at the present time the world's tonnage is larger than it has ever been in the world's history—it is 5,000,000 tons larger than it was pre-war—but the difficulty of dealing with ships in ports and of handling traffic has reduced the real efficiency and utility
of ships. I wish to put it at a moderate figure, but it has reduced their efficiency and utility, at any rate, by 35 per cent.; and some experts say that is a very low estimate. My right hon. Friend, so far as I could gather, put all the faults for the congestion of shipping in the various ports down to the Shipping Controller. He said: "If you do away with the powers of the Shipping Controller, this congestion at the ports will entirely disappear and shipowners will be able to manage their affairs far better than the Ministry of Shipping is doing it." I entirely disagree with him. Under another Regulation, 39 c, powers are given not to the Shipping Controller, but to the Port and Transport Committee, to deal with the regulation of traffic at ports, and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) knows well the valuable work that that Committee has done. If this Amendment be accepted, those powers disappear entirely, and the Port and Transit Committe is absolutely bereft of any of those powers which enable it to do very useful work.

Mr. SEXTON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would assure me that this power will not be carried so as to prevent exports to Russia, to which we have agreed, there might be something in his argument.

Colonel WILSON: I was dealing, not with Regulation 39 D.D, but Regulation 39 C, which deals with the Port and Transit Committee, and, if this Amendment be accepted, all the powers of that Committee disappear, and I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that that is most inadvisable.

Mr. SEXTON: I quite agree.

Colonel WILSON: But that is the Amendment that the hon. Member is supporting.

Mr. SEXTON: No, you spoke of Regulation 39 C; the Amendment relates to Regulation 39 D.D.

Colonel WILSON: Perhaps my hon. Friend was not here when Mr. Speaker said that all these powers came under the same Amendment. These powers with regard to congestion in the ports, as my hon. Friend learns, are utilised, not by the Port and Transit Committee, but really at the instance of that Committee
by the Port Authorities, and it has not been the actual use so much as the threat of the use of the powers which has been so invaluable in dealing with congestion at the ports. It is essential to keep those powers.

Mr. SEXTON: Would foreign ships come under this restriction?

Colonel WILSON: I am dealing with the congestion question at the moment. My hon. Friend has raised the question of 39 D.D. That is a power absolutely essential for the Shipping Controller in order to have the power of licensing. It is necessary in order that every owner can be treated fairly, and have his fair share of Government work, that every ship should be licensed, otherwise there would be no control over them. That power is absolutely necessary if the control is to continue. It is not possible to legislate except for ships on the British register. We have no power to deal with ships except those on the British register. We cannot only deal with ships on the British register.

Mr. SEXTON: It gives the foreign ship a decided advantage over a British ship.

Colonel WILSON: That is an international question. I cannot deal with that.

Mr. SEXTON: They can take cargo which we cannot take.

Sir W. RAEBURN: As a matter of fact they are not getting the cargo.

An HON. MEMBER: The Shipping Controller has power to supply bunkers to foreign ships, without bunkers it is inoperative.

Colonel WILSON: That is so. There is priority and of course the British ship gets priority. I am asking the House to renew these powers up to 31st August. If these powers are taken away there is no guarantee that the food essential for this country will arrive, and there is no guarantee at what price it will arrive. My hon. Friend (Sir W. Raeburn) is a shipowner, and I know other shipowners who agree that it is absolutely necessary in the national interests that these powers shall be continued, at any rate for a short time longer. No one is more anxious than the Shipping Controller to decontrol shipping at the earliest possible moment.
My right hon. Friend suggested three months, but we cannot possibly accept three months. It is impossible to say whether we should be able to get all the essential commodities into this country, and we cannot say what the rate of freight is going to be. I will, however, give this undertaking, that the moment it is possible, in the national interest, to relax all the control of shipping, the control will be relaxed by my right hon. Friend, the Shipping Controller. In the meantime I would like to ask the House, in the national interest—we are only asking it in the national interest—to continue these powers to the Shipping Controller. I agree that as a matter of fact we could dispense with some of them at the present time. Some of them we are not using, such as the power to control ship repairing and new construction. But, as I am informed, such a lengthy addition to the third paragraph would have been necessary in order to alter the regulation, that I was requested to ask the House that, while several of these powers are not being utilised, they might still be retained. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any occasion whatever on which the Shipping Controller has abused any of these powers? I do not think there is one hon. or right hon. Member of the House who can show that he has, and I think I may ask that he should be entrusted with these powers at any rate until the 31st August.

Mr. MacVEAGH: It is extremely difficult for the House to oppose any proposition supported by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, because he has such a wealth of soft answers that turn away wrath, and such a perpetual smile, that it is impossible for the House to get angry with him, no matter how much it may differ from him. We respect him more than anything else for the fact that when he rises to address the House, he shows an anxiety to give the House all the information in his power, and thus reminds us of the best traditions of Parliamentary life and responsibility. It is a reminder which is not without its uses in these days of coalitions.
On the merits of this proposition I was also in sympathy with the Shipping Controller till I heard the speech of my hon. Friend opposite (Sir W. Raeburn), and his speech has almost converted me. I
had intended to express my regret that, for the first time in the discussion of this Defence of the Realm Continuance Bill, I did not associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles, and that I did not propose to support him in the Division Lobby. I am glad I did not get in when I rose before, because my hon. Friend opposite would not have had the opportunity of converting me. When I find the millionaire shipowner begging that control may be continued in the interests of the community, I begin to "hae ma doots." I have no doubt that my hon. Friend opposite is a patriot, but it is impossible for him to be devoid of personal interest in this question, and he must have had it at the back of his mind that a continuance of shipping control was going to be a very good thing for the shipowners.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I venture to say that if the Shipping Controller took the control off it would be very much better.

Mr. MacVEAGH: If my hon. Friend says that, I do not carry the matter any further. But I should have liked him to explain something of the gambling that is going on in the shipping industry at the present moment. In the newspapers one sees prospectuses issued every week, and announcements of very large transactions in the shipping world. Some people are selling their ships because they say that control is coming off and now is the time to sell, while others are rushing in to buy because they say control is going to continue and this is the time to buy. I am only expressing my regret that my hon. Friend did not tell us how the gambling was brought about, and what motives prompted the gamblers to buy or to sell. [An HON. MEMBER: "Profits."] "Pro fits," says an hon. Member; but who is getting the profits—the one who is selling or the one who is buying? [HON. MEMBERS: "Both."] If both are going to make profits, then the people are going to pay in freights. I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not elaborate that point. It would have been very interesting to hear one of those open confessions which are so good for the soul, as to which side is going to make the money.
The Solicitor General advised me the other night to read those little buff books which I did not know before were
issued reporting the proceedings in Standing Committee. I got one of those books to see what happened and to see the eloquent speeches which my right hon. Friend always makes, adorning every subject which he approaches, and I read with great interest his plea for continuing control. Then I looked at the Division List. It was really most entertaining. The position was worse than that which was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). He said that this was carried by a majority of only one vote, but in that majority there were four interested votes. There was the Attorney General for Ireland, who does not know one end of a ship from the other. I am sorry he is not here because he would have agreed that there is no nautical term that he could explain, and I know that he gets sea-sick every time he crosses the Channel. He rushed up when he heard that the Government were in distress upstairs—this sick Law Officer from Ireland—to save them from distress. But that was not the only funny thing. The signal of distress was wirelessed on to the Coal Controller, who rushed up to save the Shipping Controller, on the principle of "scratch me and I will scratch you," the Shipping Controller being ready to save the Coal Controller when the day of his distress comes. Then my right hon. Friend, who is always in the breach, was there to cast a vote in favour of the Shipping Controller. I think that he will admit that he does not know much about freights or coast traffic or any of these problems, except what he has learned in the Law Courts, which is not a very practical kind of knowledge. That gave me some little food for thought with regard to the merits of this controversy. I would like to hear from the hon. Gentleman who spoke last some evidence that the control is really effective for the purposes of home trade. He skimmed over a few suggestions to convey that he was doing all these things he just hinted at. He said that if you take off the control you will not be able to send coal to Ireland. Nobody knows better than he what happened about coal for Ireland. We could not get the ships. We have been agitating for these ships for months. My hon. Friend has been most courteous about these things, but he knows that it is a game of battledore
and shuttlecock. Go to the Coal Controller and assure him that industries are closing down for want of coal, and that in the towns and cities people are suffering great hardships, and you are told to go to the Shipping Controller and that he is the man to blame.

Colonel WILSON: The moment I heard of a shortage of coal in Ireland I proceeded to get three more ships to a total tonnage of 4,000 tons on Saturday.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I said that the hon. Gentleman was most courteous and obliging but I am telling him now what the Coal Controller said about him, and in nine cases out of ten the Shipping Controller would say "go to the Coal Controller. He is the fellow who is making all the trouble."
Another thing my hon. Friend did not explain. How is it that steps are not taken by him to compel a proper supply of tonnage for coasting trade? How is it that shipowners are allowed to send their ships abroad at enormous freights, while towns along the coasts of England, Ireland and Scotland cannot get freights at all or can get them only with the greatest difficulty? My hon. Friend spoke on the necessity of getting iron ore into this country. We have heaps of iron ore in Ireland. I could take the hon. Member to mines in my own constituency, but I could not get any department in England to develop those mines. If he will only send over surveyors and engineers and open up those mines he will get as much iron ore as he wants without going to Spain for it. It is perfectly futile telling him that, or any other member running this Government, for nothing will happen. I am very glad to hear that this shipping control is going to end at the earliest possible moment, but, knowing something about the difficulty of winding up control by any Government Department, I am very chary about accepting a forecast which mentions any date earlier than 31st August. The winding-up may come by 30th August, but even then most of the officials will find it necessary to continue at work "cleaning up." If we give him power to continue until 31st August we shall probably have to endure the control until that date. In these days, in a Parliament such as this, we have to be thankful for small mercies. I welcome the sign of grace in the hon.
Member's statement that he will try to bring control to an end.

12 M.

Mr. HAYDAY: I feel that the House ought to weigh the arguments very carefully before opposing the continuance of the control of shipping. The doubt that was in the mind of an hon. Member who spoke from the Labour benches has, I think, been removed that is the fear that these powers may be used by the Shipping Controller in such an arbitrary manner as to constitute himself a dictator. If ever a controller assumes such enormous powers of dictatorship the House would very soon not only remove the dictator but remove; the possibility of setting up another controller with anything like equal powers. I wonder what would be the feeling if we were to suggest the immediate removal of control from our railways. We would at once have an outcry that as soon as you got our big inland transport machinery freed from control freight charges would go up to an unlimited extent, and you would thereby inflict hardship not only on industry, but on the everyday consumer. Serious as that would be in the case of the rolling stock of the country, it would be more serious in its relationship to shipping. An hon. Member mentioned that there was plenty of iron ore in Ireland, and there is in England; but I happen to know that the quality of your finished iron largely depends upon the high grade Spanish iron ore being used in proportion with the one which is of a lower grade, and not entirely suitable for the manufacture of high grade iron by itself. It has caused considerable anxiety in that industry. If you decontrolled shipping instead of relieving port congestion you would rather intensify it, because there would be no direction as to where shipping would go for the purpose of discharging cargo. You would have the shipowners and shipping companies putting up freight charges, and, quite naturally, going to the best markets for the highest freights, a proceeding which would not be very profitable to the State itself. I have had occasion to write to the Shipping Controller because certain blast furnaces were threatened with closing down on account of coal being diverted from home to export purposes because of the higher prices to be obtained. If you remove control the shipowners will, take freights wherever they can, and they will not be troubled
as to whether the State is injured by the transaction so long as they benefit. I see a time when the House may be asked to tighten instead of to relax control. The trend of the arguments to-day has been not against control but that you have not used the powers of control as effectively as you might have done. You might in that case have had more effective treatment of your shipping and have afforded greater facilities for home industries and the food of the people. The control ought to be maintained and it may be that we shall ask for a further extension of it when August comes in the light of our then experience. To suggest that things being as they are, we must wipe out these regulations in April or May is tantamount to saying to a shipowner, "Get to work, form an effective trust, make all arrangements for the ceasing of the control," and then it will be very hard indeed for you to stop statements being made in this House as to the serious position of industry, because of a lack of foresight in seeing that it is necessary to maintain and even to tighten this control.

Mr. SEDDON: I would not have risen but for the facetious speech of the hon. Member for S. Down (Mr. MacVeagh). It appeared that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make political capital out of a discussion that all Members want to make effective for the protection of the people of this country against the exploiter. With reference to the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member representing the Shipping Controller, I do not think anyone will take exception to his charm of manner or"' to use an Irish phrase, his "blarney." He can ladle it out as good as any man on the front Bench, but I want to point out to him with all his charm and good nature that there is a serious danger in allowing one section of this Government question to be top dog in his Department. The shipping interest is well organised and disciplined, and it has a punch behind it, and I want the hon. and gallant Member to remember that there is also the general community, whose interests should be attended to irrespective of the punch that the shipowners can put into their claims.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out Regulation 51.
Under these powers of search the police are allowed to enter anyone's house
with only one safeguard. The regulation reads:
The competent naval or military authority, or any person duly authorised by him or any police constable may, if he has reason to suspect that any house, building, land, vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other premises or any things therein are being or have been constructed, used or kept for any purpose or in any way prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the Realm, or that an offence against these Regulations is being or has been committed thereon or therein, enter, if need be by force, the house, building, land, vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or premises at any time of the day or night, and examine, search, and inspect the same or any part thereof, and may seize anything found therein which he has reason to suspect is being used or intended to be used for any such purpose as aforesaid, or is being kept or used in contravention of these Regulations.
The only safeguard against all that kind of thing is that a justice of the peace is satisfied there is reasonable ground for suspicion.

Sir E. POLLOCK: My hon. and gallant Friend seems to think that Regulation 51 is being continued as it stood, but if he will look at the third column of the Schedule he will see that the continuation of the Regulation is, "As if, as respects Great Britain, for that regulation, the following regulation were substituted," and he will remember that what is substituted is practically the clauses out of the Official Secrets Act which I arranged with hon. Members after discussion in Committee, Certain hon. Members were good enough to come down afterwards to my room, and we introduced these clauses as being clauses which were the most satisfactory for the purpose.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand that the regulation I have read out has been superseded entirely by the words in the third column of the Schedule? I was unable to be present in the right hon. Gentleman's room, although we had a conversation after the Committee upstairs. The powers of search which I have read out are very drastic and can still be exercised with only these two safeguards, first, that it must be a justice of the peace who authorises the search, and secondly that it is an alleged offence under 18A in respect to which the premises are going to be searched. Regulation 18A has to do with communicating with foreign agents, and it was pointed out by several hon. members here that the words have a very
wide meaning indeed. We all know to our cost, unfortunately, what the Executive can do in a panic, and therefore the only safeguard we have got against this extraordinary invasion of our rights is that the application must be made before a magistrate, and that the powers must be sought for because an offence is suspected of being about to be committed against Regulation 18A. A justice of the peace is suddenly approached by one of the, minions of the law, who swears to him that an offence is going to be committed by terrible people in some part of the town, and the next thing that a peaceable citizen knows is that his house is knocked up in the middle of the night, and the officers of the law proceed to break into it. If anyone tries to break into my house at the dead of night and frightens the maids and the children he is going to be shot—at all events shot at—I do not say I will hit him. But I put an extreme case quite seriously to show how very wide are the powers we are asked to give the Government. For 100 years the Government have not dared to come to the House of Commons and ask for powers to search the houses of peaceful citizens. Raids on private houses in Ireland have assumed enormous dimensions; I believe recently to the extent of 500 houses. It has not been done to a great extent here; but there have been a few dozen cases. The thing might happen in the case of panic. There might be a strike and the competent military authority, or other person, might make a representation that the Secretary of State should have these powers to put into force in their area. That would create very ill-feeling, and I doubt if any practical purpose would be served. I do not believe a word about the great necessity of being able to afford some protection.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I beg to Second the Amendment. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that these words in the third column were taken out of the Official Secrets Act. If the Government have these powers under that Act, why should they come to Parliament to ask for them at the present time? This seems to me to be a very material point.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I have a very ready answer to both hon. Gentlemen who have put questions to me. In regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman
(Lieut.-Colonel Murray) the position is this: Under the Official Secrets Act there is power taken to search in respect of all offences committed under that Act, but only under that Act There is no general power of search given for offences covered by these Regulations. Therefore it is necessary to take the special power that we ask for in these Regulations. With respect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull, who said we have not had these powers for a hundred years and that it is a flagrant thing, I would remind him that in 1911—only nine years ago—the powers I am asking the House to continue were given after mature deliberation by this House. What happened? In Committee it was pointed out, and objection taken, that the power of search given under Regulation 51 was somewhat wide; and it has been suggested that, at any rate, for the present time we might take what were adequate powers and curtail the powers given under Regulation 51. We were quite ready to meet that position, and several Members of the Committee were good enough to come to my room and discuss the matter, and we concluded if we asked for the powers granted by the Official Secrets Act and no more we should have fairly met the criticisms. I expressly stated that hon. Members were not to be held by my bargain, and I did not complain of this criticism, and they were kind enough to come and help me in regard to modifications that would be acceptable.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to appear ungrateful, but we are now asked to legislate here under Regulation 18A, and not under the Official Secrets Act.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not think I misunderstood the hon. Member and I know he objects to Regulation 18A. Under that Regulation we take power to deal with those persons who for sinister purposes are here collecting information without lawful authority or excuse, and we wish to have an immediate power to deal with them. As ancillary to that it is necessary to search the premises where those persons are in order to find incriminating evidence, and wide powers of search are necessary to carry out our powers under Regulation 18A. The question is under what powers should
these safeguards be given. As I told those who came to my room, if these powers were no larger than the Official Secrets Acts we should be following Parliamentary precedent, and criticisms should not be offered like those made by the hon. and gallant Member that this class of legislation has not been seen in this House for one hundred years, because a precedent was created only nine years ago. Consequently we have not put into the third column of this Bill precisely the same powers as are given in the Official Secrets Act except those that we have put down in an important particular. In the Official Secrets Act where a search has been made under Section 9, Sub-section I there is power not only to search the promises but to search every person found therein. We have not taken that power to search persons and we have only taken power to search premises. Hon. Members on the other side take root objection to some of the powers which had already been given by this House this evening. They take exception to 18a. But the House has already decided that point, which cannot go over Committee again, and I am only asking the House to make the powers granted under 18a effective by giving similar powers to those which exist in the Official Secrets Act. We have modified them in the way I have stated, after discussion with some members of the Committee who took a great deal of trouble to try and meet me, the difficulties which the Government placed before them at this late hour of the night. I need not go into further explanations, but I do ask the general body of Members to see that we have met the position in a fair manner, and are not taking undue or excessive powers.

Captain W. BENN: We do not wish to prolong the discussion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, Oh!"] If the hon. Member wishes further debate he shall have it. But I repeat, we do not intend to keep the House. We are going to divide on this and on our very objectionable proviso. May I say one thing, however The learned Solicitor-General omitted to deal with the crux of the whole thing, that this Regulation gives the Superintendent of Police power to order searches in Ireland, and the result is that raids are being and will continue to be made which are only calculated, and it may be even
intended, to provoke disturbance and disorder.

Question put, "That the words proposed

Amendment made: In Regulation 51, Column 3, after the word "peace" [" Justice of the Peace "] insert the words "including in Scotland the Sheriff."—[Sir E. Pollock.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out Regulation 55.

This Amendment deals with a very similar and equally objectionable clause in the Schedule which we hope to have expunged. The object of my Amendment is to get rid of Defence of the Realm Regulation No, 55, which gives the power of arrest to any person who is supposed to have committed in this country an offence against Regulation 18A. I do not know of many cases where the Regulation has been abused in this country since the

to be left out, to the word 'peace' ['If a justice of the peace'] in column three, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 16.

Division No. 26.]
AYES.
[12.27 a.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Gange, E. Stanley
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Armitage, Robert
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parker, James


Atkey, A. R.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Baird, John Lawrence
Glyn, Major Ralph
Perkins, Walter Frank


Baldwin, Stanley
Goff, Sir R. Park
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barlow, Sir Montague
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hallwood, Augustine
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Betterton, Major Harry
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Remer, J. R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Rodger, A. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hinds, John
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Simm, M. T.


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Bridgeman, William Clive
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smitbers, Sir Alfred W.


Britton, G. B.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Brown, Captain D. C.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F-


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Sturrock, J. Long


Carr, W. Theodore
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Casey, T. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Waddington, R.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Lort-Williams, J.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Clough, Robert
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Whitla, Sir William


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Manville, Edward
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Mason, Robert
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Courthope, Major George L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J, (Richmond)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Morison, Thomas Brash
Younger, Sir George


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)



Falcon, Captain Michael
Neal, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Forrest, Walter
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Capt, Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Raffan, peter Wilson
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Rose, Frank H.



Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James
Major Entwistle and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.


Holmes, J. Stanley
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)



Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Armistice. In Ireland, of course, it has been very grossly abused. All sorts of persons have been arrested, including the hon. Member for St. Stephen's Green (Mr. T. Kelly), simply on suspicion, and the same powers are sought in this country. I do not think that there is any hon. Member in this House, whatever may be his opinion, who does not deplore all the present proceedings in Ireland—houses being raided and people taken off in the dead of night without trial. We all deplore these things. The powers we are asked to give the Government art exactly the same for this country. It is possible to arrest any citizen of this country, practically on suspicion, of having communicated with an enemy alien, of having his address in his
possession, and so on. All these arguments against enemy aliens were dealt with very fully and not without ability from these benches by other hon. Members. The corollary is the power of arrest given to the Executive under this Bill. We are given the safeguard that the arrest warrant must be given by the Secretary of State, or, in Scotland, by the Secretary for Scotland, but, in practice, it will mean that the Secretary of State will be very much in the hands of his legal advisers. Some permanent official who will have the power to arrest some person in this country with whom he happens to have a disagreement. I contend that, at this time, when the country is settling down peacefully, doing its best and behaving remarkably well considering the form of Government we have got, these powers are unnecessary and that they are, in fact, an insult to our long-suffering and splendid people. The Amendment I propose is to get rid of them.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the, Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I share with the I hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Com- mander Kenworthy) the difficulty, at this hour of the night, on this question, of saying anything very bright or very new. For all that he said in reference to the last matter on which we divided, and all that I said, may be used, almost in the same words, as relevant to this present matter which we are not discussing. He objects to Regulation 18A, I, like him, do so. So does the House. He objects to powers being given at all and says that they are new powers. I refer to the Official Secrets Act. Again, in this power of arrest, I turn to the Official Secrets Act and say that exactly the same powers given for offences under this Act. I referred to the fact of this discussion in Committee, and on that occasion hon. Members moved, and they agreed on the matter, I think fairly, by eliminating certain powers given under the Official Secrets Act. I do not ask for quite so much as the Official Secrets Act gives. There is the power there to

arrest any person suspected of having committed, or of having attempted to commit, an offence. I do not ask for that; I only ask that where there is a reasonable case of an offence having been committed under the Official Secrets Act, so, under Regulation 18A, similar powers should be given. I was going to ask the House to complete the powers we have asked for to carry out Regulation 18A, and to make it a real and effective piece of legislation. I am going to ask them to give present powers and I am going to say that the pattern for these powers is already embodied in the Act passed nine years ago. While the hon. and gallant Member objects to Regulation 18A, and all the powers in it, I am going to ask the House to be good enough, as they have given me the power of search on Regulation 18A, to give me some power under the Official Secrets Act. That power does not go so far as that Act, but I think it to be a fit and proper measure to take.

Captain W. BENN: May I point out what it is that we on this side of the House object to in this case? We believe that Regulation 18A will be used for political purposes. We object also because it gives a police constable power to arrest without a warrant at all.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to construe the words "about to commit an offence "? Can he tell us how he knows that a man is" about to commit an offence "?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am not going to discuss that matter at this late hour. If my hon. and learned Friend, who is a member of the English Bar, will meet me one day in the Temple, we will discuss it together.

Mr. MacVEAGH: It would take a week to do that: a day is no good!

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 14.

Division No. 27.]
AYES.
[12.46 a.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Baldwin, Stanley
Bennett, Thomas Jewell


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Betterton, Henry B.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Barlow, Sir Montague
Borwick, Major G. O.


Armitage, Robert
Barnett, Major R. W.
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-


Atkey, A. R.
Betterton, Major Harry
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Baird, John Lawrence
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brassey, Major H. L. C.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Britton, G. B. (Bristol, East)
Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hinds, John
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Remer, J. R.


Carr, w. Theodore
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Casey, T. W.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Rodger, A. K.


Chadwick, R. Burton
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jodreil, Neville Paul
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Clough, Robert
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Cockerill, Brig,-General G. K.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Coote, Colin Reith (isle of Ely)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Courthope, Major George L.
Lort-Williams. J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Doyle, N. Grattan
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chlch'st'r)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
M'Lean, Major Charles W. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Mason, Robert
Waddington, R.


Forrest, Walter
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Whitla, Sir William


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis F.
Neal, Arthur
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavrstock)


Gange, E. Stanley
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Flnchiey)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wilson, Colonel M. J. (Richmond)


Goff, Sir park
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Younger, Sir George


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.



Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Parker, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hallwood, Augustine
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Colonel Gibbs and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Perkins, Walter Frank



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)



Entwistle, Major C. F.
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Hayday, Arthur
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Major Mackenle Wood.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time this day.

COAL MINES (EMERGENCY) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, if at any time the sums standing to the credit of an account established under any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision on account of the emergency arising from the War as to the profits and control of, wages in, and advances in respect of colliery undertakings and for purposes connected therewith are insufficient to meet the payments to be made out of that account, it is expedient that there shall be paid, out of moneys provided by Parliament, into that account such sums as may be required for the purpose.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain W. BENN: It is quite a surprise to us that this Resolution should be taken to-night The Committee stage of this Money Resolution was taken in exactly the same circumstances. I must ask that some explanation should be forthcoming. I do not think it should be taken as unopposed business. Of course,
I have only the right to speak once— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] A Resolution is being taken authorising the expenditure of money in connection with the Coal Mines (Emergency) Bill. The Committee stage of this Resolution was taken also without discussion after 11 o'clock, and I think this House is not doing right to take the Report stage, without any discussion, as unopposed business after 11 o'clock.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is nothing to prevent the Report stage of a Money Resolution being taken after 11 o'clock under the Rules of the House. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants any explanation?

Captain BENN: Yes, indeed. It is debatable and I propose to debate it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A White Paper has been issued, which no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman has already read, explaining what this Resolution seeks to do. The reason why I did not say anything in introducing it was that I did not know there was any opposition to it. The object of it is to finance the Coal Controller in order that he may carry out his duties under the Coal Mines (Emergency) Bill.
As I think hon. Gentlemen know, the Coal Controller has to collect a levy upon those mines which are able to export and to make up the deficiency to mines which have had losses under the operation of the Coal Control. It is impossible for him to do this without having money advanced by the Treasury, which he will have to repay, under Clause 7, Sub-section (4), of the Bill, which provides that the Treasury
may out of moneys provided by Parliament pay into the account such sums as may be required for the purpose, but any sums so issued shall be treated as temporary advances and shall be repaid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with interest as soon as funds become available for the purpose.
He is unable to collect the levies until the Bill is passed, and even then they are collected by the Inland Revenue authorities. Two months' notice is required before they can enforce payment. The result is that the Coal Controller will start without being able to collect levies, and yet has to advance money for a great many purposes under the Act. It is for this reason that it is required to borrow money from the Treasury for him to carry out his duties, and this money will be repaid by him as soon as he gets the levies I from the well-to-do mines. It is very essential that this Resolution should be passed now, as the Bill comes before the Committee at eleven o'clock this morning, and we cannot pass the Bill through Committee without having this Resolution. I had no idea that anybody wished to dispute the propriety of this Resolution. When they have read the White Paper perhaps hon. Members will be convinced that it is not necessary to oppose it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think we are very much indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith for having reminded this honourable House of its duty in this matter. We are asked to support a Money Resolution, yet no sum is named. It may mean a very large sum. I had understood that the Coal Controller was to be financed, he and his Department and the general bag of tricks, out of the profits of certain mines. I do not know whether the mines are going to run at a profit or; loss, but I understand that they are going to run at a great profit; yet we are asked to vote money, or what might be money,
for it simply empowers the Government to charge this money to the Exchequer presently—without a word of explanation and in view of the parlous financial condition of the country, an empty Treasury, continued expenditure, and diminished returns. I certainly think we might have had some explanation. I am very glad we have had such an explanation, as, on the spur of the moment, the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade was good enough to give us. It seems to me to be extremely irregular. I have not road the White Paper. I did not know this was going to be brought on. All I knew was that there were a lot of Amendments in connection with the War Emergency Bill, and it came as a complete surprise to me to find a Money Resolution brought forward at nearly one o'clock in the morning. I do hope this is not going to be the general practice of the Government during what, I hope, is going to be their short tenure of office.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a contribution towards the cost of unemployment benefit and any other payments to be made out of the Unemployment Fund, and also of such other sums as may be required for making any other payments (not being payments in respect of the cost of unemployment benefit or of benefits payable under any supplementary scheme) under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law in respect of Insurance against Unemployment—(King's Recommendation signified)— this day.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three Minutes before One o'clock.